Debate under one of my comments to previous

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:38 How about you making formulas for feet movements of dancers dancing reel?

I mean, reels are very regular therefore very predictable dances. And even so, they are so complex, I bet you would have some difficulty describing the feet of anyone dancing reel using formulas.

But if you succeed, feel free to try your hand at the planets again, only if you really and truly succeed, recall that God used that formula first when giving the angel of each planet instructions for its APPOINTED path or orbit.

And if you recall how many small planets there are (planetary satellites, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets ....) consider how much God did as a creative genius on day Four.

6:51, 5th condition, changing distances of Earth are TWO motions in the abstract: Sun's yearly shifting distance from Earth being mimicked by angel doing the planet + his adding an own periodical shifting distance from Sun.

Alexander Sokolnik

Well, you see, the dancers feet are also affected by gravity, but they are not out there by themselves you know there is the rest of the body attached to them. They are mainly moved by the actions of muscles, which in turn are controlled by human brain. Both of these are fairly predictable, observable physical objects, which exert force on dancers feet. In contrary planets are there by themselves and only affected by gravitational forces, and don't have neither celestial muscles nor celestial brains to guide their way. This your argument only further shows how stupid you are.

Mr.Sanemon

How completely moronic are you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Alexander Sokolnik , did you just substitute "human brain" for "human will"?

I agree nerves have to get signals from brain - but is it physical processes of the brain or is it a willed intention of dancing which ultimately moves the feet of a reel dancer?

+Autumn Lauber - your name came up when I searched for that of Mr Sokolnik. Feel free to join the debate!

+Mr.Sanemon - which one of me and Sokolnik?

Alexander Sokolnik

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It is processes in human brain which makes us what we are. There are no magical "Human will", there are only biochemical processes in a complex logical machine called "human brain", which ultimately make up our personality. Sorry to ruin this for you, but that is what we are. Vitalism as an idea is somewhat dead since 1828.

Secondly even if you insist on that the signals in nerves come from some magical process, this still gets you nowhere. Because the key difference between feet of the dancer and planets is that feet are attached to the rest of the body, whereas planets are on their own. There are no "muscles" attached to them, which could act on planets to move in such patterns. This means that until you are able to show, detect (like with radio or gravitational waves), or prove mathematically the existence force which would act on planets to produce such a pattern. Until then your argument goes nowhere

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) I don't know exactly what version of vitalism which died and in what way in 1828.
  
  I do know your proposal is as idiotic as saying an abacus which is used for counting and is useful due to its material processes could become aware of mathematics.
  
  It cannot.
  
  Your and my own experience are of what you call "a magical will".
  
  
• 2) In us, the will rules the feet VIA brain, nerves, muscles.
  
  BUT, at some level, whereever it may be, the will is still ruling the outcome of some material process without any material process coming between.
  
  In the dancers' feet, it is perhaps not the feet and certainly not the feet alone. As angels have no bodies, in their case, their will is acting directly in whatever body they are operating.

Alexander Sokolnik

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, abacus cannot become aware of math, but a computer which is sophisticated enough can. The abacus of biological world is the Hydra's nervous system. It can slowly do most basic things. Our modern computers are at animal level of intelligence,they can somewhat learn, they can simulate and analyse environment, and they certainly can find solutions but have no "self". With introduction of quantum computers we might be able to produce AI. So, again this is the miss for you.

Well, will rules via brain, in the same way as OS (operating system) rules via computer. Yes they are classified as two different things, but in essence OS is the virtual environment which results from composite of operations carried out in the processor and memory stored in the hard drive/RAM. Same with humans your will is the result of complex logical processes carried out by neurons in your brain, which is further fine-tuned by chemicals, Your long term and short term memory. Your and mine "will" is the virtual self-identity created by our brains. Destroy the brain and the will will survive no longer. Destroy the computer and the OS will follow it into oblivion.

And on topic of idiotic proposals. You suppose that there is an angel assigned holding each planet exactly in the pattern?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Yes, abacus cannot become aware of math, but a computer which is sophisticated enough can."

No. It cannot.

"The abacus of biological world is the Hydra's nervous system."

Except if a Hydra (I suppose you don't mean the thing Hercules killed by chopping off head after head) has a nervous system, it has a soul. And if it has a soul, it has real awareness.

"Our modern computers are at animal level of intelligence,they can somewhat learn, they can simulate and analyse environment, and they certainly can find solutions but have no "self"."

And therefore no awareness.

Being "able to do" and being aware of what one does are two different things. An abacus can do addition, multiplication, subtraction, division, squaring, roots if properly handled - by someone who is aware.

"With introduction of quantum computers we might be able to produce AI. So, again this is the miss for you."

You can come closer and closer to mimicking various aspects of intelligence. But you won't make a computer intelligent. That is an atheist dream.

"Well, will rules via brain, in the same way as OS (operating system) rules via computer."

Except an Operating System is not an immaterial form.

"Yes they are classified as two different things, but in essence OS is the virtual environment which results from composite of operations carried out in the processor and memory stored in the hard drive/RAM."

I suppose you know mroe about computers than I do.

"Same with humans your will is the result of complex logical processes carried out by neurons in your brain, which is further fine-tuned by chemicals, Your long term and short term memory. Your and mine "will" is the virtual self-identity created by our brains. Destroy the brain and the will will survive no longer. Destroy the computer and the OS will follow it into oblivion."

That, again, is an atheist dream.

Destroy a brain while a person is living, and he is incapacpitated for willing. But destroy a brain totally so he dies, and his will will be with the rest of his soul before the throne of God in judgement and then either off to Heaven (directly or via Purgatory) or to Hell.

Those are the realities.

"And on topic of idiotic proposals. You suppose that there is an angel assigned holding each planet exactly in the pattern?"

Indeed. And lots of others not so assigned. Including seraphim above them and guardian angels below them.

Appendix, on FB

a shorter exchange occurred after my posting previous.

SH

I don't think "angelic movers" is a very good retort. Sure, it could be true in a hypothetical sense. But it seems to abandon the entire basis of scientific inquiry, namely, that God governs the universe in a predictable fashion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In a predictable fashion - two points:

• 1) holds roughly true on earthly level but need not be true (at least for our good) on higher levels of the universe;
• 2) is, as far as orbits are concerned, even so roughly true for the heavens above.

"Sure, it could be true in a hypothetical sense."

It could be true in a true and factual sense - and that is what a good portion of Christians through the ages have thought.

"I don't think "angelic movers" is a very good retort. ... it seems to abandon the entire basis of scientific inquiry"

What if astronomy is NOT a due matter for scientific enquiry, but an easy introduction to metaphysics?

An opportunity of discovering there is a God and there are angels.

Updates

on the main debate, will not be noted separately with date for each two or four new comments. If they become very long, they will be removed to a new post. On 17.VI.2016 I start with two new comments:

Alexander Sokolnik

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No. It cannot." - why?

"And therefore no awareness." - you claim that anything that has nervous system has true awareness and then you deny this property to animals.

"That, again, is an atheist dream." - and that, again, is not an argument for why my argument is incorrect.

"Destroy a brain while a person is living, and he is incapacpitated for willing. But destroy a brain totally so he dies, and his will will be with the rest of his soul before the throne of God in judgement and then either off to Heaven (directly or via Purgatory) or to Hell.

Those are the realities."

- That, now, is a christian dream.

As well as all the angels which "hold" planets in place. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"why?"

Because an abacus is only material bodies.

"you claim that anything that has nervous system has true awareness and then you deny this property to animals."

I claim that anything which has a natural nervous system has some kind of soul, and therefore presumably some kind of awareness, if only of sense perceptions and memories related to that.

Perhaps somewhat off when it comes to that of insects.

I deny that property to an abacus, not to an animal.

You know, abacus, the frame, the mid partition, the pins across it, the hollow beads on the five bead side and the two bead side of the mid partition, the space that allows you to push beads that are counted towards the midpartition. Just so I am sure you are really talking about an abacus. It has no nervous system.

Also, I do not deny awareness to thing that have nervous systems, I am saying it is not a product of it.

Iam dixi: You can come closer and closer to mimicking various aspects of intelligence. But you won't make a computer intelligent. That is an atheist dream.

"and that, again, is not an argument for why my argument is incorrect."

So far, my observation has been born out by the facts. Your atheist dream has not come true.

[Quoting my outline of angelology and human spirit-soul]

"That, now, is a christian dream."

No, at the very least, if we had no divine revelation well documented both as to its facticity and the divinity behind it, it would at least be a very intelligent guess about things.

It would at least be as probable a guess as Somnium Scipionis.

We do have everyday observations behind the fact that awareness is not a material property and therefore, though joined to matter in us, is not a property of material bodies as such.

"As well as all the angels which "hold" planets in place. Ever heard of Occam's razor?"

Ever try to apply it intelligently?

Angels knowing ecliptic and light moving basically as usual are a ONE explanation (or three, if you will) of the planetary movements actually observed.

Heliocentrics have to involve lots more different things:

• gravitation,
• inertia
• and masses (yes, I know, Neptune corresponded to a calculus about these - that is ONE discovery based on it)
• the pure chance that their balance does not get too uneven to maintain the orbits:
  
  [ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
  SpaceVids.tv
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4
  
  I think this video is the one with slow motion, count how few orbits each droplet makes before it clings to the knitting needle because its gravitation takes upper hand over inertia.
  
  
• the pure chance that interfering gravitations from other planets do not disrupt the balance
• the view of relatively still things looking like moving if viewed from relatively moving ones, per day as per earth turning
• dito, per year as per earth leaning different directions of axis towards sun
• human internal ears getting so used to the speed they can't notice being in movement by that either.

That is eight moments of explanation.

Occam's razor prefers three over eight, right?

Entia non sunt preter necessitatem multiplicanda.

Before you try to involve Occam's Razor into some kind of "crusade against the spiritual", have you noticed that Occam was a Franciscan friar, that he was a member of a Church which believed in the existence of angels, and as far as we know, he was NOT arguing against those in it who considered angels move planets.

He was arguing against giving all ten categories of Aristotle a status of existence. He was arguing against real existence of universals. He was probably wrong there. But if he came to Heaven, he must be blushing before the other blessed souls up there each time someone like you mention his razor. Or laughing. Wonder how many angels have offered him razors with the comment "care for a shave?" by now.

As I said about video "before it[s] gravitation takes upper hand", I obviously meant static electricity, which in his experiment takes the role of gravitation.

On to next.

Testing Geocentrism, Part 2

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

Testing Geocentrism - Part 2
CoolHardLogic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wu7LqF8fzk

1:19 There is "no sensible mechanism" - except of course, angelic movers.

2:20 "if that were so, seasons on the other planets must also have a one year cycle" ... does not follow, if angelic movers are moving them the ways needed.

3:08 "is the same as for earth" - except that in earth's case, earth is standing still and sun adapting to her. In the case of Mars or Jupiter, the planets are by their angels moved so as to adapt to the sun. The great artists are also producing the beautiful or horrifying (depending on taste) Tychonic orbits.

4:08 planets circling the ecliptic are very old news and Riccioli had no problem being Geocentric in face of that.

He believed in Angelic movers.

Here I cited relevant section of his Almagestum Novum:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
Thursday, 28 August 2014, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

And here is the link to the pages I am quoting:

Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs,
An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748

And:

Next page : 248
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/141308

4:46 Yes, you are right that an ATHEIST and ANANGELICIST cannot explain Geocentrism like Epicure did. In order to explain not just these changes of direction, but also those when the spirograph pattern requires it, we will need angelic movers, and they will have to be obeying a great choregos, director or dancemaster, which we may conveniently call God.

5:22 Whenever you write, Sir, your choice of letters also cannot be explained by any physics. Except, of course, whenever you have a seizure and are not really choosing what letters you write. Then the non-choice is explained by the physics of the seizure.

However, as human souls normally direct their own bodies to which they were created, angels direct any body, just as long as it's one at a time.

Here is a nice little quote from St Augustine for you:

"Nec sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiritus caelestia corpora inspirantes atque ad arbitrium quo seruiunt deo mutantes atque uersantes neque si omnes, cum sint milia millium, in unum conlati unus fiant, nec tale aliquid deus est."

And my own translation:

"Neither the angels as they ARE thought of as clean spirits" [clean as opposed to unclean, blessed angels as opposed to demons] "and as inspiring the celestial bodies" [whatever inspiring means] " and as changing and turning them around at their will, a will bny which they serve" [the real] "God, nor all of them if they WERE to be put together and to become one, neither of these is God."

The context is of course (as St Augustine is writing De Trinitate and not a treatise on angels or astronomy) an enumeration of things that are not God. Book VIII chapter 2. Here is where I quote it:

HGL's F.B. writings : Update with Craig Crawford
jeudi 9 juin 2016, Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2016/06/update-with-craig-crawford.html

And here is where I got it from:

Vicifons : De trinitate (Aurelius Augustinus)/Liber VIII
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_trinitate_%28Aurelius_Augustinus%29/Liber_VIII

And here is where you can get a more professional translation:

On the Trinity (Book VIII)
Home > Fathers of the Church > On the Trinity > Book VIII
[Scroll down to chapter 2]
http://newadvent.com/fathers/130108.htm

Namely:

Neither as we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies, and changing and dealing with them after the will by which they serve God; not even if all, and there are thousands of thousands, were brought together into one, and became one; neither is any such thing God.

6:38 How about you making formulas for feet movements of dancers dancing reel?

I mean, reels are very regular therefore very predictable dances. And even so, they are so complex, I bet you would have some difficulty describing the feet of anyone dancing reel using formulas.

But if you succeed, feel free to try your hand at the planets again, only if you really and truly succeed, recall that God used that formula first when giving the angel of each planet instructions for its APPOINTED path or orbit.

And if you recall how many small planets there are (planetary satellites, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets ....) consider how much God did as a creative genius on day Four.

6:51, 5th condition, changing distances of Earth are TWO motions in the abstract: Sun's yearly shifting distance from Earth being mimicked by angel doing the planet + his adding an own periodical shifting distance from Sun.

7:56 You have a recipe for a roller coster, and since angels can't get sick or get scared (not the blessed angels at any rate, of any created thing at any rate), you consider the angels ought to thoroughly enjoy it.

Btw, have you tried selling your graph to someone making roller coasters for amusement parks?

8:10 or a little before:

What "childish claims of conspiracy"?

Am I giving claim that God and angels "conspire" for anything? Like being useful to us, by seasons and lunar phases, bemusing Heliocentrics and finally amusing your viewers and my readers?

I mean, conspiracy claims are usually about lower deeds, like Bilderbergers conspiring to impose "population control" or things like that.

I do believe that too, but am not entertaining that belief each time I give a Geocentric explanation, Sir!

F=? = F=spirit rules matter, God's wisdom rules smaller spirits. Not very mathematical, but who says metaphysics has to be?! That was at 8:57, btw!

9:23 Riccioli integrated all accuracy related detail where Kepler had been superior to Tycho. Namely adding elliptic shapes to orbits around orbits around solar anual orbit. So, either you lie about history, or you are mistaken.

Let's suppose you are mistaken. The error has been pointed out a few times by now, for instance by Sungenis.

So, why have you not heard of it? Has someone conspired to withhold that information from you?

Or, have you heard of it (before doing this video)? If so, how is your behaviour different from conspiring yourself to hide this fact from others?

9:34 Unlike Kepler's laws, those of Newton do involve some fudge factors.

How? Well, never did anyone "measure" the mass of any body independently of how Newton's laws work out with the orbits.

9:42 I am not sure whether it was General or Special Relativity which was counterintuitive.

Either way, when appealing to something which is (not sure if you did that here), you are saying accuracy is achieved by being counterintuitive.

I don't give much for that if that was what you were doing.

Whether it was or not, same fudge factor as with Newton applies here too. Circular reasoning.

9:47 - Compliments for the nice music, anyway!

11:46 "in the educated world, we understand and predict" ... what exact kind of "education" are you talking about?

C P Snow's second civilisation?

That is NOT what education has meant over centuries and millennia. It's an upstart within education, not a definition of it.

11:55 "and what we don't see is planets moving about as if they were playing on invisible seesaws"

You mean, what you do not believe theoretically. It happens, after all, to be what you actually SEE with all observations conducted from Earth.

On to next.

... or side remarks to Tom Horn and Michael Lake (parts 1 & 2)

Tom Horn Interviews Dr. Michael Lake On The Shinar Directive
SkyWatch TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V56IIFYijg8

Founding Fathers ... they were into Rome of Republic era.

Confer this:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fr (or otherwise) Ray Blake seems Roman Republican
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/05/fr-or-otherwise-ray-blake-seems-roman.html

6:52 Dr Lake mentioned eugenics.

New blog on the kid : Are there Republicans in an Antichristian Conspiracy? Perhaps not.
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/06/are-there-republicans-in-antichristian.html

I wish I had heard as reassuring things from Bernie as from that update from AZ Republicans. No, Bernie s still behind Roe vs Wade, it seems.

As you mention Deism and return of Nimrod, basically in one breath, yes, I think there is a connection, a Masonic one.

To St Thomas Aquinas, the Universe was not a clockwork God had made, wound up and was watching. It is an instrument God Himself has BOTH created AND is playing.

To certain Pagans, Apollo was the player of a lyre he had NOT made.

Deism is basically saying the universe is a clockwork and therefore not an instrument to God, so, here is where my speculation about them comes in, they might think that then it could be an instrument for us, who did not make it.

And behind the scenes of Deist lodges, you would find people being still more precise.

In my view, Apollo is basically the demon Apollyon or Abaddon. What he did to Oedipus and Orestes shows that clearly. St Thomas speaks of some demons' prophecies getting fulfilled because calculated as self fulfilling. Like how Father Brown viewed the witches in MacBeth. BUT, Apollyon is not a very far cry from Antichrist. So ... maybe they are looking for someone to play the universe as an instrument (I am for my part very content to play music sheets and pens as mine, have no such ambitions!).

So, you might be right about what Founding Fathers and Freemasonry was about.

14:00 sth, while I do not positively disagree with anything Michael Lake proposed about Genesis, I do defend the traditional Christian interpretation of St John's Prologue. The one does not exclude the other.

18:41 Refuting gap theory.

"Geological record" is largely a record of suffering and violent death.

If you put it before either Satan or Adam fell, what's the deal with taking out so much wrath on stupid animals who did not do much harm, beyond physically eating other ones?

On the other hand, if Cretaceous, Permian, Miocene etc are all from Flood of Noah, we do get some comprehensible context for this wrath.

19:25

"How can you carbon date sth which was there before time".

You are not doing that.

Carbon dates are a separate problem from Cretaceous, Permian, Miocene, etc. A rising C14 level, and rising faster than expected from the model "just not reached equilibrium yet", like rising because of radioactivity after Flood ... cosmic radiation being then a bit more than total background radiation in Princeton (where it is rather high) ... gives a perfectly logical YEC explanation to the dating problems.

The Shinar Directive -- PART 2 (With Tom Horn and Dr. Micheal Lake
SkyWatch TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xnTw6_MmRE

3:53 Whatever occult knowledge Ham might have had, can we agree that basic storyline of what later became Mahabharata (in the regions of his descendants Rama and Havilah) can have been the kind of family traditions of his wife (she might have been daughter or granddauther of some guy like Krishna or Arjuna) basically the same way (but without inerrancy, a special gift of God) as Noah knew the story of Adam, Seth, Henoch?

That therefore looking at Mahabharata to see where it fits into Biblical history is sth else than to read for instance Bhagavadgita and delve into the occult?

[Not saying all who do read Bhagavadgita are doing that.]

6:00 You are in fact wrong about "all of the rabbis".

I checked, found a page on internet, there are four rabbinic views:

• 1) angelic incursion view
• 2) Seth's pious line marries into impious Cainite witches (St Paul says sth about it, in general, I spell it out as what it would morally be, in order to make it clear it was not just "kissing cousins" as Rob Skiba likes to poke fun at it)
• 3) same view basically, but here it was godfearing Cainites who married into impious lines (not impossible, I believe both Krishna and the Pandavas on one hand and Kauravas on other hand were Cainites)
• 4) princes abusing power.

This last one does not really make for giants, but there would be other ways to translate geborim, perhaps.

6:25 false history about Catholic Church.

[When Michael Lake claims CC had become infiltrated with Pagan religions.]

6:44

You did not mention which apologist it was.

I could imagine you meant St Augustine of Hippo.

But if so, your theory about his motive does not quite wash.

He DID hold that demons could impregnate women.

"Sure, women have gotten pregnant by incubi after dreaming of satyrs" (somewhere in De Civitate, while discussing I think Hercules or Romulus - or even Genesis 6?) ... so, if his motive for Sethite theory was an apologetic one, first of all that admission would have been fatal to it, and second, why would the Pagans jump on angelic incursion theory from Genesis 6 anyway?

Wouldn't Jews be likelier to do that?

Would Pagans even have known about Genesis 6?

If you meant someone else, later (St Augustine straddled 4th and 5th, not 5th and 6th C), the Sethite theory would simply have been taken over from St Augustine.

[Or someone else earlier, if it was more common than we think.]

7:26 No idea where either Tom Horn or Michael Lake get it from that 5th C. Church tries to "get away from angels, demons, miracles and that".

I'd like more than Michael Lake's nodding "yes" to that suggestion before swallowing that.

St Augustine considered angels as moving stars and planets (De Trinitate VIII, chapter 2, when discussing what we must NOT consider as God), St Jerome (unless St Thomas Aquinas misunderstood him in I, Q 70, A3) that stars and planets had souls.

The Pagans who had been "sophisticated" and Sadducee like, Epicureans, were in the days of Boethius (5th C, perhaps into 6th) very out of fashion. Stoics, second most sophisticated version, nearly as much. Plato and Aristotle were in fashion, but that is like saying "Shintoism has gained very great ground on Buddhism" - since Plato, Aristotle, Shinto are all closer to Biblical view of God and at least angels than Buddhists, Stoics, Epicureans and Moderns are.

7:37 Oh, was it Julius Africanus?

No, he was far earlier than 5th C!

[If Michael Lake meant the apologist. As to "early Church Father", that is another story. He's early, but not a canonised saint, so we Catholics don't recognise him as a Church Father. But I had not heard Lake name Julius Africanus among "all early Church Fathers" and context where he was mentioned was effect of that "Catholic apologist".]

10:50 No, Apollo may have gotten bows and arrows as mythological attributes from Nimrod, but he was a demon, specialising in the works of Beelzebub (sending and taking away flies and pestilence, Iliad A) and of Pythic spirits (Aeneid VI describes him possessing a poor medium, as demons do in voodoo cults to these days, as my Latin Docent reminded us - he's a Catholic priest, supposing the ordination was valid).

11:23 As far as I know, the Bible never says Antichrist IS a genius. He will be perceived like that by the world, that's another question.

13:58 I think our genetic encoding is made so our body can fit the mind God creates.

I think a clone (if there are such) keeps the soul of the emptied embryo while getting DNA from someone else whom God created to be someone else.

But I don't think mind itself is encoded in matter that precise way - except in a general way as human DNA ties with being a man.

15:46 what if top of tower was meant to be detached from tower base, as rockets now from Cape Canaveral, simple as that?

What if Nimrod knew from pre-Flood wars (see Mahabharata) of Uranium and wanted to fuel rockets with it, and God sent ice age to stop him even before dispersing the languages?

Genesis 11,
Cape Canaveral compatibility :

Douay-Rheims and Vulgate :

[4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

Et dixerunt: Venite, faciamus nobis civitatem et turrim, cujus culmen pertingat ad caelum: et celebremus nomen nostrum antequam dividamur in universas terras.

A tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven
Turrim, cujus culmen pertingat ad caelum

Geneva:
4 Also they said, Go to, let us [e]build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto the heaven, that we may get us a name, lest we be scattered upon the whole earth.

a tower, whose top may reach unto the heaven,

KJV:
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven

All these are Cape Canaveral compatible. When the rocket is about to be launched, the ramp and rocket look like a tower and rocket like top of the tower.

NIV, not so:
4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” with a tower that reaches to the heavens

Here it is the tower itself that reaches into Heaven.

I suggest NIV is wrong.

20:49

Even God said ...

• we have Cape Canaveral, now;
• it seems Nimrod wanted to kill God, men did that on Calvary.

[Or some of Nimrod's men wanted to.]

17:42 Can nephelim not be saved or did those nephelim not get saved.

Baruch says none of the giants of old found wisdom, no not one.

[Chapter 3]

But perhaps they could have, some later did (St Christopher).

One could argue that St Christopher was only Goliath sized, about.

Og-sized or cedar tree sized might be another matter.

25:20

What you are discussing now, you are defending the Catholic view against the Protestant view.

The Protestants make sth out of John 4:21-24 as if the Catholic practise of consecrating Churches and that of making pilgrimages were superstitious "God is everywhere" ... yes, but in certain places in a special way.

The Shin in Jerusalem would be a case where God wrote it (does it mean "shalom"?).

25:41 That promise in that context is a defense of Popes taking Pagan temples, making an exorcism and remaking it into a Christian Church.

You might as Protestants argue the temple of all gods could not other than defile any Christian worship, whatever cleaning up a Pope might have done, but Christ said that the gates of Hell (what Pantheon had been) would not prevail against His Church.

There you have it!

Answers to Grace and Frank Turek

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answers to Grace and Frank Turek · somewhere else : Was Lack of Autographs a Major Problem to Bart Ehrman?

Same video as previous. Quoting description:

At SMU Dr. Frank Turek was asked, “How do we account for the errors of the scribes in the New Testament since these documents were handed down from one person to the next and what if these errors are not simple and interfere with the teachings of the scriptures.

In answer to description:

The question in itself is a great argument for the Church for keeping Latin. In 800, when Latin pronunciation was changed so French and Provençals no longer understood it, there was no standard French, no standard Provençal etc. That's when Latin became an artificial, learned only, language. About 500 years later French and Provençal were in shapes that one could use for translations - but the Church kept Latin from conservatism, and even then there was so much variation from one end of a country to another that a translation correct in one place would have been erroneous if read elsewhere, just like a Danish translation might be misleading for a Swede who had learned no Danish.

So, for accurate transmission of Bible text, we are actually dependent on the Church having used for so long nearly exclusively in some places, chiefly elsewhere, liturgic languages that stayed the same.

0:42 "we don't think we have any original documents, they are all copies"

This dates only from Iconoclasm. Originals were honoured as very precious relics in Constantinople, of the Four Gospels, and thus they were attacked by the iconoclastic emperors' persecution of icons and relics. Lost, either destroyed or hidden.

1:36 You did the very bad thing of siding with iconoclasts. Originals of Gospels SHOULD be venerated.

Original two tablets of ten commandments were venerated by being placed in the Ark for millennia of the OT period of the Church (Ok, about a millennium from Moses to Jeremiah, who hid the Ark).

1:43 If I had an original and venerated it, I would not alter it.

Normally.

Your point of each having a copy is however a good one.

1:50 Point equal for preserved originals if some stupid had tried to alter them.

Plus, a manuscript, try to alter text, you have to efface old text first, and there are experts in palimpsest readings who can now restore it, but even before the change would have left visible traces.

So, no, God was not dumb in letting Church preserve originals visibly up to Iconoclasm.

2:00 THOUGH not preserving originals after c. 800, not BY not preserving them.

The good point of many copies still stood back then, when originals were still available and venerated.

5:17 Metzger and Ehrman are a bit contradicted by Watchtower sect.

You know the verses or verse variant relevant to Holy Trinity where Codex Sinaiticus differs from Textus Receptus (of any ecclesiastic tradition).

I would however there argue, the Church knew which version to copy, while Codex Sinaiticus may have been a fake by Arians, and that is why it was laid aside. After Arianism had lost.

Actually, the question can only be secondary. If Christianity is true, such an error about Holy Trinity (or supposed such) cannot get support by a fake verse becoming Textus Receptus. God will preserve His Word's words.

If Christianity were false, we would be able to tell from many more important issues than a doubt about the text.

5:54 paraphrase.

Now, I think St John regularly paraphrased Jesus whenever he said "Jesus said to the Jews, woe to ye, for ..."

In synoptics we would see "Jesus said, woe to ye, Pharisees and Sadducees" or whatever specific group of Jewish people Jesus was adressing.

St John is, after AD 70, using "Jews" - but not letting Jesus use "Jews", except before Pilate, as a synonym for Christ's enemies.

6:38 - you mean the prevalent culture in Jewish community of discipleship back then involved highly developed memory.

"Back then" vs "now" is not relevant. Hindoos memorising Mahabharata verses are probably even more impressive than the disciples of Our Lord.

But then, Our Lord gave shorter taxations on their memories than the cantos of Mahabharata.

It does matter if we can get "verbatim" what kind of exception if any Christ envisaged for indissolubility of marriage, or whether "Peter" and "rock" mean same thing or different things (Greek has different words, Aramaic same one, Kipha). And we can.

Also, the guys can have carried tablets of wax and taken notes while He spoke. Verse 1 of a speech written down by Peter, up to full stop or colon, verse 2 by Andrew, verse 3 by James, verse 4 by John. And so on.

Afterwards, Peter, Andrew, James, John and the other eight read the talk over and over again, until all are fluent in whatever the others noted as well.

And then, clean the wax tablets and be ready to use them for next speech.