Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism

HGL's F.B. writings : A Shorty from a Long Debate : on Innocent III as a pretended "mass murderer of Christians" · Albigensians and Innocent III - Which was the Christian Side? · "Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies." · Someone admired Kent Hovind without my reservations · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism

11/26/18 - Dr. Kent Hovind: Questions and Answers - Which Church?
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL | 27.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu-KzqbG-Pc

I

4:13 "300 years later the Catholic Church started with Constantine"

Except, it claims it started 300 years earlier, when Christ chose His disciples ....

4:20 "He took all the soldiers down to the river ..."

What exact occasion?

In fact, mass baptism did happen when Franks (Salian Franks) under Clovis and Kievan Rus' (under Volodymyr) were converted.

As to Franks, they arguably calmed down compared to previous saccaging, and they also defended Catholic Romans against persecutions by Arian Visigoths further south.

As to Kievan Rus', for a while there were no more death penalties (I think it remained so in the life of St Volodymyr, or even beyond).

B U T .... Constantine? When? Is there a quote for it in Eusebius?

4:39 OK ... Catholics and Original Christians, for 1200 years, both claim to be Christians up to Martin Luther.

Which ones of the non-Catholic groups are you identifying with Original Christians?

I don't think any of them lasted all that era, I also don't think different groups were the same.

And I think I am a bit better than you at Church History.

4:58 Neither the 95 theses nailed by Luther, nor the condensed list of 41 Luther-theses condemned by Pope Leo was a simple list of things Luther thought the Catholic Church was "doing wrong".

Some were his interpretations of Catholic doctrine, abandoned later, when he founded Lutheran Protestantism properly speaking, like "if a soul wishes to escape purgatory it sins mortally against the justice of God" or "souls in purgatory are masochists by submission to God's justice".

As if there was no obedience in accepting God's clemency.

5:13 As you claim the Protestants are NOT the original group, where was it in 1517?

Btw, Protestants splitting in 30 flavours is pretty spot on. Your religion is actually one of them.

5:56 Oh, Anabaptists ... like the proto-Communist Munzer?

Or like Menno - except Menno was a decades later peaceful reconversion of Munzer's Anabaptists ....

6:06 Now you are speaking of Baptists.

Started out as two sects, even later than Menno.

"Historians trace the earliest "Baptist" church to 1609 in Amsterdam, Dutch Republic with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.[2] In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants and instituted baptism only of believing adults.[3] Baptist practice spread to England, where the General Baptists considered Christ's atonement to extend to all people, while the Particular Baptists believed that it extended only to the elect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists

1906 Asuza Street has same numerals in different order as 1609, Amsterdam, John Smyth ...

II

As by 7:00 sth you are into personal memories, I'll go into mine.

Ma was into Salvation Army.

William Booth separated from Methodists
Methodists separated from Anglicans
Luther, Zwingli, and even more relevant Bucer and Cranmer and Tyndale separated from the Catholic Church.

Dad (I was told) was into 7DA.

Ellen White came from the Millerites
etc .... library closing.

[resuming next day]

Miller was a Baptist - which leads back to two sects starting out in 17th C. which leads back to Presbyterians which leads back to Catholics.

7:55 Figuring it out a bit better for you.

The Methodist marks a difference between Bible reading and preaching, as the Catholic priests did before him and still do.

NB, with other means.

First the Catholic priest sings or reads the Gospel (or has a Deacon sing it for him, but no one under Deacon is allowed to do so). This he does in full vestment, including the chasuble. He does it in Latin. Why? Because the Gospel reading is strictly a part of the Mass, a part of liturgy.

Then he takes off the chasuble, appearing so to speak more as the individual he is, and speaks his sermon in vernacular. This is how it has been since maybe even 813 AD, council of Tours (and earlier in parts where vernacular was a Germanic language and not a dialect of Latin).

Now, the Methodist never has a chasuble in the first place, so he has two different pulpits instead.

III

8:50 "Baptism is nothing but water"

You are contradicting John 3. Verse 5.

9:01 A priest saying a blessing over the water is not what makes it do a holy thing, a sacrament, in Baptism.

Using specially blessed baptismal water is customary, not necessary - a wetnurse who has to baptise a baby who could risk dying before baptism uses ordinary water. What makes the water perform a holy thing in Baptism is form (given in Matthew 28:19 as to the main words) and intention (of the person baptising and, at least absence of counterintention in the person being baptised).

Funny you can't discuss Catholicism without misrepresenting it ....

By the way, one reason for infant baptism is, with adult baptism, a man could risk making his baptism invalid by posing a counterintention.

It could happen if he has lived a chaotic life, if thoughts flash through his head he needs to take time getting back on track and so on.

Children of eight days old getting baptised are getting their salvation solely based on what Christ did.

Yeah, brain fade was the word .... [i e, what if someone getting baptised as adult has one and thinks "no, I don't want to get baptised!" for the central moment?]

IV

10:14 As you brought up Bereans of Acts 17, they were competent to search the OT Scriptures. For one. They were Pharisees (up to converting to Christianity) and had been taught OT under rabbis for all their lives, since the age of school children.

Also, note, they were not looking for explicit literal confirmation of a Christian doctrine, since OT was only prophecying Christ, not stating His life in the way the Gospels are. In order to confirm Christianity from OT only (with Rabbinic tradition, mind you, of the better sort) they needed to be able to take a hint.

Abusing Acts 17 to expose Catholic laymen with little instruction (closer to Galilaean fishermen than to Berean Pharisees) to the exercise of having to defend this that and sundry Catholic doctrine by a literal and explicit statement AND on top of it telling them to discard the literal and explicit statements there are (like for Real Presence in Eucharist) by "of course you understand" types of arguments, that is very highly abusive.

Some Protestants on the internet have tried that with me, and ... well, I am a fairly well instructed Catholic after having been a Bible geek type of Protestant ... so, they cannot count on the same kind of success as with a Mexican from the country trying to make sense of the city where he is trying to better his external conditions and where sometimes an Apostasy to Protestantism (especially Evangelical) could be helping his affairs. The timely ones, not the eternal ones.

The OTHER proof text for "every Christian needs to read the Bible himself" is also not a proof for that. John 5 includes Christ's words, not to Galilaean fishermen, but to Pharisees.

V

12:15 Another one, if they really went up in a rocket, they would have looked in all directions and seen a round horizon - and they would have seen an edge equidistant from them in every direction they looked and it would have been round.

So, they saw the curvature. Why didn't you challenge them on that one?

And more, if they knew geography, the horizon they saw would also not have included all the cuntries they knew, not all of US etc.

If you see a horizon whereever you look, you see a round horizon.

If this round horizon does not include every place you know of, it stands to reason that there is a curvature of a ball like type where things are hidden behind a horizon.

12:34 "and spinning"

Actually does contradict Joshua 10:12.

Joshua and the words he spooke were God's means of producing a miracle, like Moses' staff or like Elijah's mantle.

They are not simple narrative, they are what God used to make a miracle.

Now Joshua didn't say "Earth, stop spinning". He told Sun and Moon to stand still.

There is also no scientific reason for a spinning earth which cannot be turned around to an aether spinning around earth and displacing vectors with it. And there is no reason against a luminiferous and vectorially-inertial-framing aether in the Michelson Morley experiment, unless you presume Earth is orbitting the Sun.

Also, with a spinning and orbitting earth, you have stellar distances.

Now, you are very right that Earth-Earth-alpha-Centauri is a very skinny triangle.

But the angle of alpha-Centauri-alpha-Centauri from Earth is not directly measured. It is measured in relation to the background of stars presumed further away and adhering in movement closer to just "aberration" which is a movement more than twenty times greater in angle than this.

If I say "aberration and parallax are both misnomers, the movement is not a compound apparent movement from two phenomena of optics related to our movement, it is a simple proper movement by an angel moving the star", then I have no problem having stars (i e fix stars, not planets) at a distance of one or two light days over Earth, and then I also have no problem whatsoever with the "Distant Starlight Paradox". Light from alpha Centauri or Sirius or any other star left the star on day four and arrived on day five so newly created birds and beetles could start orienting themselves.

The nova supposed to be millions of light years away being only one light day away means, it was observed on Earth the day or within days from after it happened out there.

So, no, you were wrong to involve "spinning" in what you defended.

Round, yes, the Biblical four corners are better identifiable on a globe than on a modern flat Earth map. But spinning, no.

Oh, one more, if you don't think that even aberration of starlight is a measurable angle, why do you believe in Earth orbitting sun in the first place?

VI

"yes he supports the round Earth, but believes Earth is the centre of the Solar system"

Of the Universe, not specifically the solar system.

"the Sun goes around the earth, you know [how] fast the Sun would have to go at 93 million miles away to go around once a day?"

Well, why would this be a problem?

IF this happens bc Sun moves through an inertial frame (including empty space as per one Newtonian-Galilaean aberration).

149 598 023 km * 2pi / 24 h = 39 164 671 km / h
92 955 902 mi * 2pi /24 h = 24 335 798 mph

Now, imagine this is vectorial movement within a frame, it is pretty drastic. Imagine instead the only vectorial movement is the one which makes Sun lag behind the stars. That eastward movement which comes full circle in one year.

You would need to divide by 365.2425

39 164 671 km/h / 365.2425 = 107 229 km/h
24 335 798 mph / 365.2425 = 66 629 mph

Obviously, an angel is taking the Sun Eastward. He is overhauled by the aether through which he is moveing it and which God is giving a much faster spin around Earth Westward.

13:51 Your polemic on flat earthers and their view on night and day is not really supporting your Heliocentrism.

13:59 "send me a map of what you believe"

It's probable they won't do it, since inside the round rim, they don't have four corners. On a globe the Old World has roughly speaking four corners (England offshore, Cape of Good Hope, Australia offshore and Sakhalin). They form a "non-Euclidean rectangle". (Bad terminology, but still, that is what they form - a "rectangle" with sum of corners > 360°).

I have pointed it out, others may have repeated it, by now they would know it and be afraid you would point it out too.

VII

14:42 "watch the video Edrick and I did"

Would that be your son Eric and you and automatic subtitles being erratic?

Would you mind linking to it?

VIII

15:18 Look here, if a professor made a public comment on a video of yours, you have no business saying "I'll call him Nicholas".

A fan of yours (admin on a site you approved) wrote this:

"But forbidding people to read some book? Off course we can give some advice about some particular book, and then it's up to the individual to do as he believes is right for him. But do inform him!"

Witch hunt and sect behaviour or The ability to criticize yourself
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers/witchhunt.html

Actually, the Catholic Index did inform people such and such a book existed and Church didn't want you to read it.

Those who wanted to obey the Church bought a copy of latest edition of the Index, and before buying a book not explicitly endorsed by the Church, checked it wasn't in there. Those who didn't want to obey the Church could see Voltaire and Locke were among authors Catholic magisterium didn't want you to read.

You are by contrast NOT informing your viewers on where they can find Nicholas real or pretended debunking of you.

You are treating a refutation (successful or attempted) as the question of a private enquirer whose last name is withheld for his privacy.

This is definitely dishonest and that people like Tyson DeGrasse or DeGrasse Tyson are doing such things is no reason to do it if you pretend to be a Christian. It reminds me of the ways in which "gatekeeping" in synogogues worked over 2000 years, so young Jews could read no Christian literature.

And after what Nicholas seems to be saying, I think his site needs exposure for the idiocy it promotes.

32:29 Wait, "Nicholas" was so cheap he didn't publish his going through of your video, he just sent you the papers?

Too bad one can't get to see all the arguments you were not responding to on the many pages.

Well, that would exonerate you from the charge of over secrecy on this one ...

IX

[after continuing to watch, here is some in response to "Nicholas" and Kent Hovind:]

22:59 I'm afraid you missed what his argument was.

The argument wasn't laminations, it was outcrops.

Some area in Karoo, you find creatures classified as Triassic. In the middle of it, you find creatures classified as Permian. ERGO, there is an outcrop of the Permian layer from below the Triassic one.

For my part, I have dealt with it. Permian and Triassic creatures are both biotope specific parts of the pre-Flood fauna in what is now Karoo.

23:41 I think you are at least partly right on his proving age of layers by fossils and age of fossils by layers they are found in. I would however imagine he has some kind of pretense that for instance the outcrop of Permians creatures in Karoo is accompanied by lithographic layers pointing to Permian being lower - I haven't found that, and I actually didn't even pose the question in contacting Karoo. Yes, I had a short correspondence with them over there.

24:19 I'd submit to Nicholas the discrete events are in fact not very long separated ones during the Flood and the problem is not so much boiling the series down to a few thousand years as reshifting from "event series" to biotopes during Flood, side by side.

26:14 Rapid lamination is quite OK, but it doesn't adress all he was talking of. I do (except perhaps "outcrop" being shown as such by non-fossil means as well) by adressing the fossil layers as biotopes.

Btw, Permian and Triassic creatures are also not bottom to top series, at least as far as land vertebrates and Karoo is concerned, that much I checked. Where they found Triassic near top, they presume they would find Permian lower, but don't bother to look as they have an outcrop of Permian layers near by.