... on Cutting Edge Creationist Arguments

What is the most 'cutting edge' fact for creation? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 3-16)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c3yTfaf4Kw

How about testing the silver bullet qualities of my two major contributions:

Creation vs Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Creation vs Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

So far I have seen neither use, nor open on your side misuse, nor refutation of these two arguments as to why they would be bad arguments to use.

C'mon. Daniel was a prophet, but part of the time he was a detective too. He gave silver bullet quality disproof of Bel and the Dragon being gods.

Proving a thing beyond reasonable doubt is of course NOT a guarantee that Evolutionists won't come up with a very implausible just so story.

For these two it hasn't happened yet. PZM tried as to Chromosome numbers. I gave a refutation.

From here:

Creation vs Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

You click here:

Creation vs Evolution : Karyogrammata
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html

Then here:

Creation vs Evolution : Karyogrammata
a linea : Chromosome Numbers
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2009/08/karyogrammata.html#chromosomenumbers

Scroll to the Summing Up

[A few lines below where you arrive.]

Human bones within T Rex, evolutionists would have no really impossible trouble saying one tiny population of T Rex somehow survived the Cretaceous / Palaeocene boundary and ... that is basically the scenario of Tarzan's voyages in Opar, which were written by the heavily evolutionist (and I think racialist too) Edgar Rice Burroughs.

A pretty bad example for "devastating" as far as logic goes.

Luke 16 ... well, the rich man's brothers who were Pharisees or something like that (have Moses and the prophets but do not believe them) did see Lazarus rise and refuse to believe and did see Jesus rise, or at least the soldiers whom he had passed by while rising, and the empty grave, and they refused to believe.

That does not mean Resurrection is not a fool proof argument for Christ's divinity. Only that some are worse than fools.

Look at people denying the Resurrection:

somehwere else : from Mark Shea to Joseph Atwill
(1:st of, up to present, 3 essays, see links on site)
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2014/04/from-mark-shea-to-joseph-atwill.html

Or at Calvinists denying Real Presence, despite Our Lord's clear words.

Saw that thing about papers removed without a word to the authors.

May have been done by hacking to a diagram of mine which showed impossibility of centromere fission according to PZM's view, because when I looked at the Karyogrammata link, I couldn't find that diagram.

I think I did one.

It seems there is no diagram on karyogrammata for the impossibility of chromosome fission resulting in chromosomes of the usual shape, arms both below and above the centromere, each arm ending outwards from centromere in a telomere.

It has probably disappeared because I was comparing it with one picture taken from the web from PZM's post. That was done with attribution, it was a reasonable portion for the sake of refutation, so he has had no legitimate cause for complaint. That does not mean he cannot have told some hacker without juridic skills of the needed level that I was breaking his copyright and then that hacker removed it.

Unless of course CMI or AiG were jealous at my scoop or worried the argument should be used and refuted before they had time to - very slowly, like millions of years - test and perhaps approve it.

Well, here is another comparison of two diagrams, one of which resumes that of PZM and the other one (purely my own) adds telomere signs to it and shows the weakness of PZM's thought:

Fission de chromosomes, diagramme de PZM corrigé et refuté
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/09/fission-de-chromosomes-diagramme-de-pzm.html

Even if it is in French, you will know how to read the diagram, I hope.

Oh, the culprit could of course also be like Darwin Catholic or else some Russian, or some Orthodox Modernists of other nations, eager to jealously guard and safeguard justifications for their Evolution compromise since back in the Communist era.

How wise was Our Lord when he refused to talk when blindfolded and asked to prophecy who had hit him!

17:02 - sorry, I heard that too or rather read of the general order of things gettng buried in the flood BUT the problem is where on earth do you find that?

You can find fossil layers on top of fossil layers from different periods. But usually the same fossils, like in Yacoraite, Argentina, I think.

You can even find fossils from different periods with two different kinds of fossils. Cretaceous Ceratopsians below, Palaeocene (or Miocene or whatever) marine fauna above, I think there is one exact place in Mexico for. As a Flood geologist I would say the Ceratopsians got buried, then marine fauna swept in a few days later, and then that got buried in mud too.

BUT usually world wide, if you dig straight down anywhere, you get same biotope as long as there is a clear biotope with identifiable fossils.

Ask out where it is different any spot on earth - including England, Scotland and Ireland where the excavations started on a big scale.

Where do you find Ordovician fish or Trilobites below, Dinos in the Middle and Sabre Toothed Togers on top?

As far as I know, there is no such place. Anywhere.

Karoo group, sure, it has a lot of periods. But each one beside rather on top of others.

This is what I found. Now, don't plagiarise this from me because you do not like a Catholic said it, and then have Freemasons delete or sabotage my blogs again.

Simply link to my material, if you want to resume it, tell where you are resuming it from:

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

And if you don't like to make this a direct publicity for Catholicism, simply say you have reserves about my theology while recommending my argument.

That can be done. You have done it with Chesterton, for instance.

[They do not seem to be taking that approach, I had to log in to see my own comments! Thankful in some way they left it like that so I could copy them, but one can hardly refer to our relation as cordial.]

Ah yes, Sanford might have got some of the facts from some of the not so logical evolutionary biologists and geneticists wrong there.

Meaning it gives, especially to non-Christians, pretty gruesome as well as inaccurate advice.

For instance mutation rates can have risen due to modern environment.

... on Henoch and Elijah or Moses and Elijah

Elijah the Witness
Sword of God .Second channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUUdY7mIGJg

I (not first, but most important)

Malachi 4:2

Sun of righteousness = Our Lord Jesus Christ
With Healing in His Wings = His arms were streched out on the Cross

II

Time traveller?

If Henoch and Elijah were lifted up and will return as the two witnesses, this does not mean they are fast-forwarding everything that went between. But of course being lifted up to Heaven (whatever level of it, as long as it's supernatural and not just - even that doubtfully - a few days on the moon) means that forgetfulness no longer has a grip, and that their experience between the lifting up and the return down will not have made them forget what they saw while on earth.

III

Why Henoch rather than Moses for second witness?

Two reasons. The two witnesses die. Moses already did die, since Michael and Satan were arguing about his body. One reason for not Moses but rather someone who was taken up alive.

Apart from fitting that description, Henoch is also ancestor of the Gentiles. That is not the case with Moses.

Precisely because Hindus are Gentiles, not Hebrews, and because the ancestor of Pandavas and Kauravas "Bharata" was both an empire founder (like Cain with his son Henoch) and receiving "Nirvana" (which is not being taken up into Heaven, but kind of a substitute concept among Hindus), I wonder if Henoch (the Patriarch, not the Cainite King) will not when returning be either confirming or infirming my guess. Precisely to the Hindus. That might make some of them convert.

IV

Your argument for Moses:*

These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy:

seems to be the power of Elija

and they have power over waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues as often as they will.

seems to be the power of Moses. BUT we do not know what exact things Henoch did. Have you checked in Mahabharata if any figure (maybe mistaken for a god by the Pagans) has similar powers?* I say this since it is commonly understood by Church Fathers (I have not checked - perhaps St Augustine long ago - but otherwise I would not be seeing this in Catholic Bible Commentaries) that Moses died, so on Mount of Transfiguration Elijah came from Heaven, Moses from Under the Earth and the three Apostles from Earth. So, Moses seems to have died already. Apocalypse 11, BOTH witnesses will be killed. Fits with Henoch and Elijah.

Douay Rheims Bible Online
The Apocalypse Of Saint John (Revelation)
Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/chapter/73011.htm

* Though as Christians we do not need Pagan myth to settle interpretation, such a thing would be handy.

... on Mahabharata

Video commented on:

Myths of Mankind: The Mahabharata (Ancient History Documentary) TheAncientWorlds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVxNvquJLBM

fly4life

Christians should read this, they will see a lot of similarities. hmmmm.

sumit dalal

Not actually surprising. India had contact with christian world since second centruy AD. India have churches before split of christianity into various factions. Even Portugals were surprised at it.

rohadt Anyad

+sumit dalal christianity had hindu influence, not the other way around.

[I took it from this that the man was a Hindoo, but I may have been wrong. Check what he says further down.]

sumit dalal

did i say anything about who influnced who

I dont think so.

Moreover it is difficult to determine.

rohadt Anyad

+sumit dalal not difficult to determine. the mahabharata is much older. when you said that india had contact with the christian world from 2nd century ad, you are saying that christianity influenced hinduism, as the christian mythology was mostly established by then. but you date is wrong, christianity (jews that started christianity) had contact with hindu mythology after 4th century bc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do see a similarity between the family situation of Draupati and the Samaritan woman at the well of Sichar.

I hope Draupati was saved when Christ died on the Cross. But for the Samaritan woman we are sure.

I do see a similarity between NoD East of Eden and iNDia. And the dynasty of Nod, in Genesis ends with two brothers. In Mahabharata we see two sets of cousins. I do see a similarity when it is said of Kauravas their origin was demonic and of Pandavas their origin was divine and the story of Genesis chapter 6.

I will not say the origin of Pandavas was divine, but I hope it was not quite as evil as that of their cousins.

I do see a similarity between the situation described in Mahabharata and the words "all flesh was corrupt" (Moses did not give details).

If Krishna really posed as a god, he maybe damned. But it is also possible he was regarded as a god later and his exact words were forgotten. Added to by false Hindoo philosophy. Anyway, the end of that story was not really the battle where Arjuna won. It was the Flood. The real winners were not the men who went with Krishna but those that went with Noah. But perhaps the wife of Cham was a daughter or granddauther of Krishna and that is why a Chamite people remembered the story when they forgot the true God and when they forgot the Flood.

That is what I, as a Christian, can guess (because I do not know) about the similarities between Mahabharata and the Christian story.

One more thing. Maha Bharata seems to have meant then (if my guess is right) the Great Empire of Nod. It was not the Cainite society, but the Sethite one, set apart from Nod, who survived the Flood.

+rohadt Anyad "christianity (jews that started christianity) had contact with hindu mythology after 4th century bc."

With Persia, yes. With India possibly no.

Indeed, Alexander the Great was very little concerned with India. When he came to the frontier river, perhaps Ganges, he thought he saw "the Pillars of Hercules" (straits of Gibraltar) on the other side. A factually wrong but in the end [i e with right facts supplanting the wrong ones] correct argument the world is round. BUT also a proof he got very little information about India. 

rohadt Anyad

+Hans-Georg Lundahl alexander brought back hindus with him to babylon. there was a flow of cultural information between greece and persia, hence the jews had opportunity for contact to hindu mythology. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where do you know that from?

[resuming the comment:]

I see another similarity. Or two. The Pandawas are sons of a man who had two wives.

If I was right previously, the son of Lamech who is their father imitated his father in having two wives. If I was wrong, Pandu is Lamech and Tubal-Cain and Jabel and Jubal three of the five Pandawas. Supposing of course I was right in supposin Mahabharata is about pre-flood.

Perhaps I was wrong. But suppose, just for fun, I could have been right.

Bharata was ancestor of the Pandawas. He was an Emperor and he attained Nirwana.

Henoch was a son of Cain, gave his name to a City.

ANOTHER Henoch was in the Sethite line. He did not "attain Nirvana", but he pleased The Lord and was taken up from Earth.

Bharata can be a confusion of the two Henochs. The Greeks remembered the Flood, but Deucalion is not just Noah. Deucalian and Pyrrha are both Noah and his wife (and their sons and their wives not mentioned by the Greeks, AND the old couple Abraham and Sarah visited as childless by Three Angels who were God, AND Lot and his wife and two daughters saved by Two of the Angels and afterwards Lot's wife was gone and his daughters believed they had to commit incest to repeople the earth. So, if Deucalion and Pyrrha are a confusion of three couples in the real History, Bharata can be a confusion of two men who had the same name.

The second Henoch is probably one of the two who will come back from Heaven (along with Elias who was also taken up).

IF I should be right, when he comes he will tell. If it matters at all.

fly4life

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Come back from heaven? Jesus said "Heaven is within" so I guess coming back would mean snapping out of the bullshit trance a person had just sent themselves. "Christians" dont read these scriptures because if they did they would not always point up toward "heaven".

rohadt Anyad

+Hans-Georg Lundahl now you are just losing you mind. what flood are you talking aBOUT? what real history? noah is just a story. so is moses, the exodus, the wandering in the desert and the conquering of canaan. there is no real history in there. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

fly 4 life: Jesus said "Heaven is within"

Bible: "The Kingdom of Heaven is among you".

[to Anyad]

If the Flood were just a story how come even Mahabharata and Puranas mention Krishna as prophecying at least a local flooding after his death?

ALL cultures over the world, not just Jews and Christians, but Greeks, but Norse, but Peruvians, and a few more remember the Flood.

Hindoos remember some pre-flood conditions in Mahabharata PLUS a very minimised prophecy about the Flood.

If Krishna was a man of God and not a fraud, he did not say "leave that city, it will be flooded" but rather "leave here and go to Noah who is building an Arc" [unless this was of an earlier and smaller flood, though greater than those we see today]

However, Hindoo culture, Egyptian culture and I think Chinese and Japanse culture too have tried hard to forget facts about the flood and nearly succeeded. Krishna's prophecy about a city being flooded after his death remains to Hindoos. Atlantis story remained in Egypt - whether it was a smaller flood before Noah's one or a part of that flood. Some Chinese characters recall Genesis too.

And the Shinto story if it lacks the flood starts out very late. I think Emperor Jimmu may have been Aeneas, who lived more than one thousand years after the Flood.

rohadt Anyad

+Hans-Georg Lundahl you are just a moron. there were floods. many in fact. the nile and the euphrates flooded yearly. the ganges and the indus flooded periodically. predicting a flood was not really a prophecy. but there was no worldwide flood. there was noah. there was no arc. the whole world did not get destroyed. you actually believe there was a noah's flood 4000 years ago? are you completely insane?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I am not insane enough to deny the witness both of True Religion and of Universal (or near such) Human Tradition. But it seems Hindoos have made themselves so.

Why?

Well, the Mahabharata is not just about a war, but about the Bharata Varsa, the World Wide Empire which was threatened by that war, in the Hindoo way of looking at it.

In God's view, the Bharata varsa (as you might call it) of the Cainite dynasty of Nod, East of Eden, was very much at least part of the reason He sent the waters.

After the Flood, an idiot tried to remake the Bharata varsa. Or several together in fact. When they came from the East to Sumer (probably they had seen India not yet habitable) they started building a very great Tower. One of the purposes was to remake the Bharata varsa. God punished the Tower by linguistic imposed fractioning of Humanity, so as to spare us a quick rebuilding of Bharata varsa. THIS some people wanted to forget, all while remembering the Bharata varsa before the Flood. That is my little guess of the background for Mahabharata.

Now, on the one hand they had to acknowledge there was a new era. To us it came with the Flood. To them it came with the death of Krishna and Arjuna a little before the flood. They could not deny all flooding by the ocean, they probably saw ruins of a city which had been there before the Flood. So they said that Krishna had predicted a local flooding of that city. Still way beyond a flood by a river flowing over. They forgot about the flood, they forgot about the Tower of Babel, they started off as if pre-Flood heros were direct ancestors of for example the Kuru. In patrilinear fashion.

Usually a community knows its beginning, but this once they wanted very badly to seem to continue something more ancient.

[resuming comment:]

Jews have been in India since the days of King Solomon? (23:20 or just before)

Well, in that case the gentle Pandavas may more reflect King David continually on the run from his father in law Saul than actual pre-Flood Cainites. This is however not necessary.

But it might mean that:

• The versification of slokas was an imitation of Psalms by David
• That the ancestor Bharata - the cherished one - is named after a translation of the Hebrew name David - the beloved one.

And if Mahabharata preached pantheism, that was an error.

If any man before the flood said what Krishna is said to have said in Bhagavadgita, he was a bad man and not a god.

Of Jesus Christ one can say either He was God or a Bad Man. If Krishna made the claims given in Bhagavadgita, as "victory and defeat are the same" or "a wise man and a heap of dung are the same" [actually the words were rather gold=heap of dung, wise man=cow, not necessarily that the two pairs equal, which is a bit better], he was a liar or a victim of demonic lies.

Of Jesus we can know He was God, because He foretold His Resurrection and then rose from the Dead. We can know He ascended to Heaven insofar as we can know the Eleven Disciples saw Him lifted up, after the Resurrection, into the clouds before vanishing, with their eyes and not "eyes of the mind or dreams". Of Krishna we know no such thing at all. His pretended ascent into heavenly palaces and welcomed by gods already there is the vision of a poet. Just like the Conference on Mount Olympus is in the beginning of the Odyssey the vision of Homer. Neither is knowledge. Christianity is knowledge. The Gospel is knowledge.

The Eternal Word is not the Vedas and not the Quran.

It is the God who became - and remains - Man, without ceasing to be God. The Man who died on the Cross and rose on the third day, according to what all Scripture before His time on Earth had told about Him in prophecy and parallels. The Christ who is Jesus from Nazareth.

Some people want me to accept Hinduism. I will not. They think I have done harm and if I were a Hindoo I would do no more harm. But I have not done harm to innocent people with some exceptions where I was first harmed myself by those who wanted me to quit being a Christian.

Victory of Pandavas: "Every rule is broken" .... exactly, that was the case before the Flood. Except by someone the Pandavas may have ignored and his descendants in India wanted to forget: Noah.

[Vyasa's words to the child about the one woman saved recall that the Cainites did not have descendants after the Flood, except insofar as some of Noah's daughters in law could have Cainite origin. - Sorry, this was added before seeing the article on Parikshit, after only relying on the info from video.]

rohadt Anyad

+Hans-Georg Lundahl are you insane or are you a poe? i mean there is no other possibility. you are either mentally ill, or pretending to be one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are very obviously an Oriental.

Instead of arguing the issue you resort to namecalling.

But perhaps I am a Poet - with a T at the end.

The Mahabharata poet wanted to know what happened eternally to the people he had been describing. And he invented it.

I am inventing what happened between the events recorded truthfully in the Bible and in more detail but less truthfully in Mahabharata. He was recording traditions about the battles, but he was inventing what happened to the last Pandava after the victory.

A beautiful story, but not what really happens to a righteous soul after leaving earthly life. Precisely as Krishna ascending to be welcomed by the gods is not what would have happened to a soul who while living had said the Bhagavadgita to Arjuna.

However, it may be the Mahabharata poet's invention, he was less guilty since not inciting to such a battle and the original charioteer of Arjuna may have been less guilty by not saying it.

rohadt Anyad

+Hans-Georg Lundahl i am not oriental you ignorant dumbfuck, and there is no arguing the issue, you are retarded. i am still thinking you are a poe, i don't think it is possible for any human to be actually as stupid as you are.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

rohadt Anyad is not an Oriental name?

It is not from any Oriental language like Sanskrit or Hindi or Urdu or Bengali or even Pashtoon or Farsi?

Or you are perhaps of such heritage but yourself educated in the "melting pot"?

rohadt Anyad

+Hans-Georg Lundahl no it is not. i am not of such heritage, nor am i educated in the "melting pot". you are taking the bible as true, which is complete nonsense. it is made up nonsense, just like the crap you are inventing. you don't even know when the bible was written, what is its origin and what is the origin of the hebrews.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

YOU do not know that.

YOU presume on a consensus among modern academia which has no basis at all except atheist prejudice.

However, you have not explained your name. rohadt Anyad does strike me as the Aryan branch of Indo-European languages (without getting into the debate whether there was a Proto-lang from which all branches descend or not). So, you are not of such heritage, you are not educated in US, kindly, where are your roots? Then?

Or did you just invent it for a screen name?

Does the Bible adress Mahabharata issues?

See Yudhistira
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yudhisthira

While climbing the peaks, Draupadi and four of the Pandavas fell to their deaths, dragged down by the weight of their guilt for their sins. Yudhisthira was the only one to reach the mountain peak, because he was unblemished by sin or untruth.

On reaching the top, Indra asked him to abandon the dog before entering the Heaven. But Yudhisthira refused to do so, citing the dog's unflinching loyalty as a reason. It turned out that the dog was Dharma.

Apocalypse 22:15 Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

Yudhisthira was carried away on Indra's chariot. On reaching heaven he did not find either his virtuous brothers or his wife Draupadi there. Instead he saw Duryodhana and his allies. The Gods told him that his brothers were in Naraka (hell), atoning for their sins.

Yudhisthira loyally went to Naraka to meet his brothers, but the sight of gore and blood horrified him. Though initially he was tempted to flee, after hearing the voices of his beloved brothers and Draupadi calling out to him, asking him to stay with them in their misery, he remained. Yudhisthira ordered the divine charioteer to return. He preferred to live in hell with good people than in a heaven with his enemies. Eventually this turned out to be another illusion to test him and also to enable him to atone for his sin of deceiving his guru during the war where he half-lied to Drona about Ashvathamma's death. Thereafter Indra and Krishna appeared before him and told him that his brothers(including Karna) were already in heaven, whilst his enemies suffered from hell's torment in due time for their earthly sins.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

Some debate resumed:

sumit dalal

+rohadt Anyad u have misinterpreted me.I never said Christianity influenced Hinduism. And christian mythology was established by constantine. Prior to it there were many gospels which were later declared non canon .This thing never happened in India therefore we have so many versions of our mythology. I know India had contact with Mesopatamia since Harrapan times. knowledge might have been exchanged in ancient times long before present form of hinduism came into form. Therefore i said it is difficult to determine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Christian community of canonic Gospels never accepted the Gnostic Gospel "of St Thomas". The Gnostics accepting it never accepted all of New Testament canonic books, nor Old Testament books.

Neither community essentially changed whether at Constantine or at other times.

And since I believe action of Mahabharata was - insofar as it happened - pre-Flood and redaction of it post-Flood and post-Babel (Hindus may have had a good excuse to want to forget the Flood if the version they knew was the Babylonian one, in which one god sends it and another one saves from it), there were many more centuries between Mahabharata action and historic Vyasa than between Trojan War and Homer, at least as many as between Trojan War and Tragedians, and the distance between Trojan War and Homer was in its turn several times greater than between the Life of Christ and the Canonic Gospels.

The learned men are playing around with redaction histories of the Gospels a bit like I am doing with that of Mahabharata.

... on Authority, Protestantism, Genesis (answering Robert Barron)

Video A:

Protestantism and Authority
Fr. Robert Barron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE

I Can Everyone Make Sense of Scripture?

Biblical History was already in everyone's hands. Historia Scholastica was translted into vernacs

As said, Historia Scholastica by Petrus Comestor was translated into several vernaculars and this with the full blessing of the Church.

No Flemish Inquisition was burning the Rijmbijbel, which was a Flemish translation of Historia Scholastica. And obviously Petrus Comestor with his Flemish translator (and his colleagues for other vernaculars) took Genesis 1-11 as very literal history.

So, on Genesis 1-11 (except perhaps the question of freewill in ch 4 and precise nature of fall ch 3) Catholics and Luther were totally agreed. Not Petrus Canisius, not Pius V, not Cajetan, not Francis of Sales, nor any other Catholic found any fault with Luther for taking these chapters literally.

II How Splintered is Protestantism?

Number of Protestantisms ... if Catholic Church and Orthodox Church together are so close to each other and so far from the Protestantisms properly so called, that would make about 5th or 6th major kind of Protestantism. Or perhaps 7th.

Lutherans and Anglicans are an Episcopalian one with Methodists.

Then there is the Presbyterian one, Calvinists and Arminians.

Then there is the Baptist or Congregationalist Protestantism (with free will baptists and calvinist baptists and pentecostals).

Then there is Restored Magisterium Protestantism (Watchtower Society and Mormons, also Apostolic Church).

Then there is Anabaptist type - Amish, Mennonites, Quakers and Shakers.

Then there are Apostates totally, like Unitarians, Transcendentals, Atheists.

III Are recent Popes acting as Referees and Fairly so?

Was John Paul II / Karol Wojtyla a fair umpire?

New blog on the Kid : David Palm as a Canonist
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/04/david-palm-as-canonist.html

If the salt looseth its savour ...

Intervening when he had to ... is Bergoglio being a referee or is he a player?

An atheist who liked him said he feared "he is after my timeslot". He refuses to blow the whistle but holds the ball all the time.

Video B

Fr. Barron comments on Misreading Genesis
Fr. Robert Barron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

I What is the Genre of Genesis?

What KIND of text are we dealing with?

Well, Petrus Comestor and any Catholic in his time and the following centuries, including the ones who condemned Luther were clear on Genesis being HISTORY.

Historia Scholastica
on Latin Wikisource (shortlink:)
http://ppt.li/historiascholastica

From 12th C, but printed from Strasburg 15th C up to at least Lyons 1543. It was a standard work. It was also the basis for translations into the vernacular. Like:

Rijmbijbel
on Nederlandsche Wikisource (shortlink:)
http://ppt.li/rijmbijbel

II Is Genesis Accurate?

"Modern Science didn't exist yet"

Well, there is no way that ACCURATE and INERRANT history can contradict ACCURATE science. So, perhaps it is Galileo and Darwin who are INACCURATE. Thought about that one?

III What is Proper of Science?

"To form hypotheses to test them with experimentation"

Standard theory on why Sun moved in relation to Zodiac, Newton's time: an angel was moving it. Standard theory as to why it moved each day: it was moving with all of heaven which was moved by God.

Newton certainly gave another explanation, but never ever tested it in such a way as to exclude the previous theory. UNLIKE how he dealt with spectral theory of light.

IV Themes in Genesis

"Creation is happening now"

No. Creating the world and upholding it are two distinct acts of God. [Both involve conferring existence on what has none of itself.]It's like building a harp and playing on it (analogy given by St Thomas Aquinas).

"Great act of violence" of Pagan Mythologies. None such in Big Bang or Abiogenesis?

"Some worshipped stars"

Modern scientist Lawrence Krauss said "a star had to die so you can live"

"Some worshipped animals"

Modern scientists of evolutionist bent say we have five phalangs on each hand or foot because non-human ancestors survived better that way. Or that other traits of our nature can be traced to non-human supposed either ancestors or beings with a same last common ancestor.

AronRa on his video series (five parts) on evolution of morality argues about Chimps coming in two shapes: bonobos and troglodites. Hippies and warriors. If that is all there is as alternatives go for chimps, so it is for men ... if chimps were our gods, of course, which they are not.

Video C

Deep Misunderstanding about the Bible by Fr. Robert Barron
Resource777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxOjJHB5-8

I Enumeration of Genres in the Library Called Biblia

R U saying that either Gospel or the "Saga" at the beginning of Genesis are not meant as literally accurate history?

I am from the Nordic Countries. When I see the titles "Njáls saga" or "Gunnlaugs Ormstungu saga" I do not think of a "Märchen" like Rumpelstiltskin. I think of a "Sage" like Richard Lionheart being captured on his way through Austria by the squire of the Duke he had insulted at the siege of St Jean d'Acre. In other words, I think of literally factual information.

As history, I would compare Genesis to Herodotus, I - IV Kings (and Paralipomenon and Maccabees and for that matter Judges) to Thucydides and Gospels to the memories about Socrates, mainly those by Plato (Socrates as a Pagan and mere human was more complex about where he stood than Christ and so the works by the other disciple, what's his name, who also wrote Anabasis, though VERY different from Plato can be equally true: Plato shows the great thinker Socrates was occasionally, Xenophon the conventional Pagan he was habitually and sometimes slipping back into, while Aristophanes shows rumours from the viewpoint of his enemies and detractors). The difference being that Xenophon, Plato, Thucydides and Herodotus were mere men, workin outside a strict and uninterrupted divine guidance, and so they were fallible. Not so Moses or St John or St Matthew, who worked under the inspiration of God so as to say nothing in these works which was not also said by God who can neither be deceived nor deceive.

II Should one Take Poetry Section Literally?

Ha, poetry section!

NOT taking poetry as literally true (or meant to be such if good) is a habit that comes from Christians reading Homer and Virgil.

Did Ulysses come back to Penelope? Sure. Did he kill a lot of suitors when doing so? No problem.

Did he blind an already one eyed giant on the way? Possibly, but he could have been bragging about that one.

Was Zeus and Athena debating with Poseidon on Mount Olympus on whether he should get back or not and when? That is nearly the first scene in the Odyssey. No way a Christian can take that as literal truth! HENCE the habit of reading poetry for fun and then intellectually dissecting it "when Hermes warned Aigistos, Homer is speaking of his conscience, since even a bad man has such a thing, or about his guardian angel" ... For Holy Bible you don't need to do that to have it make sense. Its authors were not misguided Pagans that Christians can accept for instruction and for fun with some goodwill and some stretch. Its authors were designed to teach ONLY truth. Including in the very obvious poetry section called Psalms.

It is as much the literal or close to literal view of how things are or will be about Jesus Christ (see Ps 21 Deus meus) of King David and other authors, as De Rerum Natura is Lucretius cosmology and evolutionary cultural history as he literally believed it. With important difference that Lucretius was wrong by omitting God from His creation. And he and Tully were wrong to take the earliest men as savages without civilised institutions (see what St Thomas says against Tully in Supplement on whether Marriage is by Natural Law).

III Are the Novels in the Bible?
[As in invented figments of imagination?]

Moby Dick is a novel. Were the old Hebrews in need of inventing such - or had God placed them alive in a real life novel setting?

If you say Book of Jonah is a novel like Moby Dick, you are repeating a rationalistic explanation like that suggested by Calvin. He also wrote off Tobit as a novel. Are there any novels in the Bible?

Jesus' parables come pretty close to being a candidate. BUT the thing is that their author is God. The guy who can write a parable about Christ into the events of all the Old Testament can also afford taking examples from what in His omniscience he knows to be real life - which he created for that purpose.

Pope St Gregory the Great taught that the Rich Man and Lazarus were real people and St Lazarus of Bethany, the brother of Martha and Mary, identic to the Lazarus who had been suffering a life like Job up to recently before the four days of death and the Waking from the Dead by Jesus. I agree.

IV From within a Hermeneutic Tradition?

FIRST OF ALL - saying any part of the Bible as speaking of past events is a mythology which is not meant for literal truth is NOT the Catholic tradition.

SECOND - saying the first eleven chapters of Genesis is not meant literally as history is also NOT the Catholic tradition.

1909 the Bible Commission of Pope St Pius X also very clearly said so.

It is I, the FUNDIE here, who is really speaking from within the CATHOLIC tradition.

You seem to be treating Genesis like a Platonist or Christian would read Homer's divine scenes or most of Hesiod's Theogony. Not like a believer in Homeric Mythology read those things and also not how Hebrews and Christians have been reading Genesis for Millennia.

... on the Anti-Vatican Smut that Came from Avro Manhattan to Serbs / my codebator not being guilty of it

1) New blog on the kid : Ukrainian Catholic Flee Crimea?, and from comments on same link: 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on the Anti-Vatican Smut that Came from Avro Manhattan to Serbs

As said, from comments on same link:

Catholic Herald co uk : Priest: Ukrainian Catholics flee Crimea to escape threats of arrest
By Jonathan Luxmoore on Tuesday, 25 March 2014
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/03/25/priest-ukrainian-catholics-flee-crimea-to-escape-threats-of-arrest/

However, this was a somewhat other topic:

JBQ

Sadly, this issue goes back to WWII and the conflict between Catholic bishops in Germany, Austria, and Croatia. They supported Hitler as a repellant to Russian Orthodox Slavs. In Croatia, there was a campaign to eradicate the Orthodox much like you would stamp out roaches. Many were murdered including priests, women, and children with many of the murders very grotesque. It must be remembered that Constantine changed the Roman Empire to Christianity and then moved it to Constantinople. This is a religious conflict and what makes it all the more complex is that the Bolsheviks infiltrated the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Veronica

Nonsense. Blessed Stepinac, a Croatian Catholic Cardinal stood up as the foremost opponent to crimes committed by ALL sides in the 'former Yugoslavia' during the War. He was subsequently poisoned while under house arrest by Tito's government. Sadly during WW2 and in the 'Balkan wars' of the 1990s, the Orthodox Church stood front and centre with Serbian soldiers, including Chetniks, the same monstrous 'soldiers' who slaughtered Bosnian Muslims and Croats in Eastern Bosnia in WW2 including the nuns called the Martrys of the Drina River. The Serbian Orthodox Church is terribly nationalistic and sees the Church in Rome as an affront and blames Catholics and Muslims for all their ills instead of looking at Serbian expansionist history. When Pope John Paul 2 came to Bosnia in the 1990s Serbs and members of their church went ballistic.

JBQ

Basically, you don't know what you are talking about. Medjagorje was the scene of one of the most violent of the butcherings. Orthodox priests had unspeakable atrocities done to them. They were literally butchered. Franciscans at that same site wore their religious "uniforms" as commandants of a concentration camp which was used to reindoctrinate Orthodox Serbs. Stepinac was misguided. Croatian Nazis were rigidly supported by Catholics and considered all Orthodox Serbs as the enemy. Mihavalich was a Chetnik leader who supported the reinstallation of the monarchy in Croatia. The Americans and Brits sold him out and he was captured by Tito and then executed. President Truman rightfully honored his memory. Tito was seen as a bulwark against Communism. He too turned on Stepinac. The Bosnian Muslims were a remnant of the Ottoman empire. They formed an alliance with the Croats in order to reclaim their land and were in the forefront of the butchering of Serbs. This left a sour taste with the Serbs and they retaliated in the 1990s. You have a lot of gall to even postulate that the Orthodox were completely wrong and the Catholic Croats were completely right. There were a lot of atrocities and betrayal on both sides. Bosnian Muslims continue to have their own agenda. Why do you think that the Blessed Mother had to intervene at Vienna to stop the Muslim advance? Islam is a cancer and we have a president whose father was one whose son is viewed in the Muslim world as a Muslim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, but whatever truth there is to the atrocities, the story about Stepinac's involvement or about "Catholic bishops in Germany, Austria, and Croatia" supporting Hitler is balderdash.

I suppose you are relying on Avro Manhattan's lies from "The Vatican's Holocaust". Did you know he was a Jew?

Did you know Jews hated Pius XII because:
a) they were part of international brigade
and
b) he congratulated Franco to the victory 75 years ago
or
did you not know that?

The following blog post shows a Russian Orthodox priest who was NOT misled by Avro Manhattan:

Rorate Cæli : The Passion of Spain comes to an end, 75 years ago
Message of His Holiness Pope Pius XII
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-passion-of-spain-comes-to-end-75.html

JBQ

Pius XII did great things under trying circumstances. Franco saved Spain from Communism. Croatia attempted to copy the methods of Franco. Catholic bishops endorsed the Anschluss in Austria. These were trying times with forces from the right and left out to destroy society. Stepinac attempted to resist Communism and was taken in by fascism. Mihailovich of the Chetniks resisted Communism and was accused of collaborating with the Nazis. The Brits and Americans supported Tito as an independent Communist and allowed Tito to take the Chetnik leader and execute him. America has no concept, no concept at all, of the turmoil in the Balkans. The same turmoil exists in Ukraine today. Islam is the wild card.

HGL

Sorry, I was thinking you were promoting the lies against Stepinac.

I do however not agree he was "taken in by fascism".

He was initially under illusions about Ustashi, yes. But "fascism" is an ideal, whether right or wrong, and as such distinct from people who with honesty or hypocrisy pretend to represent it.

If he liked fascism, maybe he continued to do so after distancing himself from Ustashi and trying to save as many innocent lives - including both Serbs and Gipsies - from them.

And in that case his initial liking for it, unlike his initial liking for Ustashi, was not "being taken in".

Turmoil is a very good description of quite a lot of the XXth C. Including but not limited to Balkans then and later, or Ukraine earlier and now.

Islam is the wild card? True, one does not always know in advance whether what they will do is good or bad.

JBQ

The Ustashi were basically Nazis. A number of religious orders supported them and even joined with them. There were reports of Franciscans in uniform running concentration camps for Serbs. They were supported by Islam and that is why there was a lot of turmoil from the Serbs in the 90s. Way back in the Middle Ages, Islam had overrun the area and it was similar to the taking of Constantinople. I have been to the Metropolitan Museum in New York a lot more than once. There are a number of artifacts from Byzantine times. The entire civilization was based on Christ and the family. This was wiped out with the creation of Istanbul. Western Christianity still hates Byzantium. All manner of abuses have crept into the Western Church in the name of world socialism. Stepinac evidently saw the light and tried to fight the influx of national socialism of which the present American administration is only one more example.

HGL

There are a number of artifacts from Byzantine times. The entire civilization was based on Christ and the family.

True enough, but even more true of the Latin West especially in the times of St Alexis Falconieri. (He died in 1310, before Kosovo Polje).

There were reports of Franciscans in uniform running concentration camps for Serbs.

I know of Majstrovic, he was excommunicated and thrown out of the Franciscan order. Or if it was only one of the two, it was perhaps not safe for Stepinac to pronounce openly an excommunication against someone favoured by the Ustashi.

A number of religious orders supported them and even joined with them.

Entire orders? Sure you do not mean religious FROM orders?

I will not believe all Franciscans were Ustashi for a moment.

Then there is Ustashi support and Ustashi support, precisely as among Germans there was Nazi support and Nazi support. Someone might like Hitler or Pavelic at first sight because he thinks a humiliated nation will get its own back again. Not unlike how Serbs had been humiliated in Kosova and then started liking one Milosevic who promised this would never happen again.

Western Christianity still hates Byzantium.

No.

Both Latin Catholics and Protestants tend to like Byzantines better than each other. Protestants that attack Catholics will say "look at the Orthodox, they don't have a Pope". Catholics that attack Protestants will say "look at the Orthodox, they honour the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints, and their Monks and Nuns, and they have Seven Sacraments and Holy Mass is a sacrifice and they have all our 73 books in their Bibles".

Some Western Christians who prefer Muslims over Byzantines are technically Protestants but actually more like Apostates.

All manner of abuses have crept into the Western Church in the name of world socialism.

World socialism is abusive anywhere. Even among Orthodox who accept things like Evolution and Heliocentrism and Psychiatry.