Mike Schmitz was nearly good for a while, but then screwed up

Did People in the Bible Really Live for 900 Years? | Fr. Mike Schmitz
16th Jan. 2021 | Catholic Answers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK9yC-trcQ4

I

2:31 No, the 900 year long and some more lifespans between Adam and Flood would have been a very natural situation back then.

The present situation has to do with radioactivity. From Flood to Babel (if it was Göbekli Tepe and not even later like some say Eridu), the carbon 14 rise is depending on a production c. 10 times faster than at present. This production would go with more radioactivity from cosmos, more milliSieverts per year from cosmos, right now it is 0.34 at medium height of inhabited places, but back then it would have more or less equalled the other components of background radiation if not more.

This would have had another effect, shortening lifespans, as the genetics of man degenerated.

This would after some more than a millennium, rather than a millennium and a half lead to Moses dying at 120, which today is still reachable, but extreme. Like, Japan, Crete, very healthy living.

Living in the Upper Palaeolithic would have been very unhealthy due to the radiation (plus those dying in it would have died prematurely, since even Shem would have lived into Neolithic). Hence our much shorter lifespans.

Note, I count Babel as c. 40 years between death of Noah and birth of Peleg.

II

5:00 Here is City of God, book XV, by St. Augustine:

The City of God (Book XV)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

St. Augustine was very clear that the lifespans like 930 were natural between Fall of Adam and a later post-Flood stage, so much that one reason he gives for Enosh born when Seth was 205 is ... puberty as much delayed as lifespans were longer.

I have a confirmation for this one, less favoured, elsewhere : Ishmael is carried on his mother's back when he is 14, 15 at least. Sungenis spoke of "he would have been ten" ... no, he was past 14 and as small as if he had been ten. And this was a son of the Abraham who lived to 175 (impossible today) and brother of Isaac living to 147 (impossible today).

But I'd agree with him, he's a Church Father, that later puberty was not all of it.

III

6:13 No struggle needed. Science will tell you radioactivity is bad for you, and therefore will provide four our genome being less good than that of pre-Flood or even early post-Flood patriarchs.

IV

7:30 "science is answering the question oftentimes "what" and "how" ...

What a bore! How awful ...

Faith is answering the question "who and why"

Genesis 1 never states why God created, except for the creation of man.

It very often adresses what and at least partly how, namely "in what sequence". And "by what method" (divine fiat, the famous "magic wand" decried by "Pope Francis" in 2014).

V

8:37 No, there is nothing which says Genesis 1 to 11 is highly poetic.

It is highly oral, each chapter is shorter than Nicene Creed, and all of it not much longer than the songs of the Iliad that aeidoi were learning by heart from Homer to Peisistratos.

It is not pre-history. There is, overall, no such thing as pre-history, except the times given in Genesis 1 and 2 before Adam, the first human observer, was introduced. Or other references to before God created, like in Wisdom. From his creation on, Genesis is history.

To anyone in ages prior to Romanticism, "poetic" would not have conveyed "fictional", so even if poetic had been correct, as it is for psalms, it doesn't mean non-accuracy, not literality and so on.

Here is a double reference to Exodus and Flood:

Thou by thy strength didst make the sea firm: thou didst crush the heads of the dragons in the waters.
[Psalms 73:13]

While "firm sea" refers to walls of Red Sea leaving Hebrews dry, and "crushing dragon heads" means drowning Egyptians, it is also very descriptive of mud flows during Flood of Noah and dino fossils typically found either body without head or head without body. And dinos can fairly well be described as dragons. Literally, not just poetically.

8:38 There is no such thing as a switch over to "* history * history". Abraham's story begins in chapter 11. He's born 541 years after Peleg. But as he is no longer just receiving very short texts meant for oral transmission, he discovers, on written support, he can afford to be more prolix, and this goes on to Genesis 50.

No, 8:49, the chapters are not from "life before history existed" except most of Genesis 1 and some part of Genesis 2.

8:56 So, you interpret it according to that understanding of the genre, you are wrong on both genre and how to interpret it.

VI

10:15 I refer to Aristotle.

Experience of doing well leads to enlightenment. Experience of doing ill leads to illusion.

Your experience of interpreting Scripture would, if you take Genesis 1 to 11, be an illusory one.

Your reference to The Office. I don't know the show. But it is not unlikely that some have correctly assessed it as fiction, but for the wrong reasons, so as to assess even fact as fiction. Among atheists, it is very often you find "supernatural" = "fiction". We know this is not true, but this means, you can be looking for the wrong things.

It is in fact lots wiser to conclude, genre differences do not at all go into the difference between fact and fiction, or if they do, that is accidental to the general principle, due to "parallel universes" like Narnia not existing, God made one creation, but this cannot be drawn out to a general principle. Some of the tragedies about Hercules would have included lots of either fiction or misunderstanding. But Persae was contemporary history. Only dialogues are fictionally reconstituted, which was standard for much of historiography later on too.

The one real, and spottable, difference between Genesis 1 to 11 and Genesis 12 to 50 is in how detailed each man's life is described, even some men are less described in last chapters than Adam in chapters 1 through 5. Ephraim and Manasseh. The reason is, oral texts have to be either short or poetic to be memorisable. Faithfully transmittable. In Genesis 1 to 11, the authors went for short.

As I asked Robert Barron - could he faithfuly teach the Nicene creed to a dying child without books at hand? Well yes. And any chapter 1 through 11 is shorter, and Nicene Creed is also prose.

If you assess Genesis 1 to 11 as poetry, you are not familiar with the genre of Hebrew poetry.

If you assess poetry as implying need not be taken as literal history, once again you are not familiar with the genre of Hebrew poetry.

Can Church Doctrine Ever Change? - Differing from "Breaking In The Habit"

Can Church Doctrine Ever Change?
25th Jan. 2021 | Breaking In The Habit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfYNE4hnjA8

I

2:07 "always be there to guide them"

His actual words:

But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
[John 14:26]

In other words, He does not promise any guidance beyond His actual already stated words.

When we get to John 16, we do get

[12] I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Does this mean, Christ did not ever say these things, they are only after Pentecost?

No - it means He could not tell them certain things before the passion, on that occasion:

• constraints on human memory (one evening, vs 40 days from Resurrection)
• grief of Apostles at Crucifixion, already foreboded by dangers
• lack of grace yet to be supplemented.

Challoner annotates:

[13] "Will teach you all truth": See the annotation on chap. 14. ver. 26.

And if we go back there, we do indeed find:

[26] "Teach you all things": Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error.

However, we find this in connection with the Holy Spirit promised to remind "whatsoever I shall have said" - i e what He had already said but also what He was going to say during 40 days between Resurrection and Asciension.

These words preclude inspiration after death of last apostle:

For he shall not speak of himself;

In other words, the apostles could know it was the Holy Spirit by:

• direct reference to words of Jesus
• direct reference to already extant Scriptures, i e Old Testament
• or, at most "wild," syllogism from any of above.

II

2:28 Confession, prayers for the dead, perpetual virginity of Mary were all known to the Apostles.

It is on the day of Her Dormition that She went out of direct observation of them. They knew She had no other children and could not imagine She could have been infertile if having intercourse, as well as them knowing Her Son remained a virgin, as well as probably also having His exegesis on certain OT passages. And She would have confided to St. John the beloved how his virginity (lifelong or when She lived with him?) pleased Her because of Her (indeed lifelong) virginity, as well as Her Son's.

Confession had been instituted with the power to absolve, given in John 20:21-23.

Purgatory would have been known, at least with some reasonable approximation, since Maccabee times.

Not a trace of "development of doctrine after the Apostles" - supposing that were even what Newman meant in that famous but not so often read long essay.

Delvin George

Are you saying Doctrines are not developed as in solidify into Dogmas?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Delvin George I am saying they are not developed as from simple silence.

Dormition was "solidified into dogma" in 1950, if Pius XII was still Pope then.

But it hadn't changed. He did not and could not for instance define there was no Dormition. He could not define Apostles did not surround what was looking, till She closed Her eyes, like a death bed.

III

4:23 "limiting it to the Pope"

The Pope is infallible in three ways:

• united to the universal episcopate in ordinary magisterium (directly involves more men than the Pope, namely all or nearly all the bishops)
• signing a universal Council (directly involves more men than the Pope, namely majority of bishop vote)
• speaking ex cathedra to define (directly involves only the Pope, in practise certainly some other men, but not necessarily outlined which ones).

IV

4:48 "being a part of the Catholic Church does not necessarily make one a part of the Mystical Body"

That goes beyond the actual statement in Lumen Gentium. What SSPX has complained about has been another way to distinguish this from the statement of Mystici Corporis ... so, the theologians behind the passage did not follow the recommendation of GaSp, since their expression was less suited to bring clarity.

Some decades ago, the exegesis on LG would have been like mystical body were present in other communities too.

Plus, sounds false. Being a part of the Catholic Church does not necessarily make one a living member of the Mystical Body, but while a Catholic one cannot be totally cut off either. Know the amputations where gangrened limbs are taken off? Well, that kind of outside the body is like being in external forum a Catholic no more. Dead limbs still Catholic have some hope to be resurrected ones.

I think your position was very clearly condemned in condemnations of Baius, Jansenius and Quesnel.

V

a) 5:47 Religious liberty. In Dignitatis Humanae, this is presented as due to the person, and not as sometimes (in our times in most aspects and instances) due to peace or limits of accountability in external forum for those never raised as Catholics.

b) 6:48 What did Pope Leo X give permission to, exactly?

• 1) the paper work for loans needs personnel, and this personnel could be paid a modest living - not a lavish one - for the work, and this would be provided even in total by interest (which would also pay janitors for where the business was conducted)
• 2) but he also said, it is far holier if the municipality (the montes pietatis were run by municipalities) paid for half of these expenses by whatever the revenue of the city involved.

This is a far cry from permitting interest tout court.

I seem to have forgotten to link to where I found the text, but here is my copy:

EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES : Lateranense V Concilii Sessio X
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/04/lateranense-v-concilii-sessio-x.html

multo tamen perfectius, multoque sanctius fore, si omnino tales montes pietatis gratuiti constituerentur, hoc est, si illos erigentes, aliquos census assignarent quibus si non omni, saltem vel media ex parte huiusmodi montium ministrorum solvantur impensae, ut ad leviorem aeris solvendi portionem medio hoc pauperes gravari contingat, ad quos, cume huiusmodi census assignatione, pro impensarum supportatione exigendos Christi fideles maioribus indulgentiis invitandos esse decernimus.

6:49 "by the 18th C. the Church gave universal permission"

Source needed!

Plus, if true, would have been on a so much lower level as not to disrupt the authority of the councils of Lateran V or III or decree 29 of Vienne. A N D may have been the reason why the Church was chastised by secularisations and French Revolutions in the second half of that century.

c) The statements for Portugal and about enslaving Muslims (Arab or Black) would have been not adressed to the Church.

It would also have been in acts of retribution, since Alger and similar pirate bases did enslave Christians. While most of the population would not have taken direct parts in the acts of piracy, exploiting it by buying Christians on the slave market would have been more widespread.

A portion of mainly Portuguese bishops tolerating slavery even after Paul III would have been simply one episcopate, not the universal magisterium.

VI

8:35 Geocentrism is rooted in Scripture. Young Earth Creationism is rooted in Scripture.

Acceptance of Heliocentrism (in a limited but palpable way) came, if you are correct, around the time of acceptance of usury, and were punished by French Revolution.

Acceptance of Deep time came in 1909, but on the condition that this was just exegesis of days in Genesis 1. Soon after we have the World War I.

Acceptance of Evolution, as in Adam's body (but not soul) evolving from beasts came in 40's - the same time period as the earliest French reports known now about clerical abuse of boys come from.

Jesus is God in the flesh and as such not ignorant of anything He had to teach the apostles:

Summa, III part, Q 15, A 3
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4015.htm#article3

VII

9:04 "we might have to realise that we have misunderstood the dogma for many years and so must completely change a discipline of the Church"

Well, the problem is, this is one instance where you would have to invoke such a freedom of change.

In the reassessment of theological statements in 1983 "canon law", which I did not know when converting in 1988, the discipline relating acceptability to unanimous consensus of Church Fathers, from Trent, was scrapped.

Isn't it easier to say you have wrongly assessed what the criteria for valid councils and popes are for about 60-70 years? And some in Paris, about Genesis, for about a century, since E. Mangenot, SJ, was inventing the framework theory? 1920, that would be 100 years and a few months rather than 101 years as yet?

9:18 Founded by Christ, run by the Holy Spirit - well, we got criteria for HOW the Holy Spirit guides the Church, meaning such changes do bother.

No, changing doctrine doesn't show we are growing closer to perfection. They show we are getting closer to or have passed the time called by St. Paul "revolt" - as to Church Fathers who considered it was one against the Roman Empire, the I World War and the Russian revolution and Austrian Anschluss would fit that bill.

DR : II Thess 2
http://drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm

Baumann took on the Flood geologists

Noah's Flood and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (feat. Steven Baumann) - Evolution Exposed Exposed
Paulogia | 3.XI.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crBJCiZjtkI

I

3:20 "and invent terms we as geologists don't use"

It would seem reasonable that an alternative paradigm would use an alternative terminology to describe whatever the difference is about?

Or did Flood Geologists ever claim to simply represent main stream old age geology?

II

6:09 What if the three times thicker sediment from pre-Cambrian with only stromatolites is the pre-Flood sea bottom? Btw, considering that GC is marine fauna, mainly, it would have been sea, not land in the moments just before the Flood.

6:32 "a km or so thick limestone unit precipitated from sea water in a matter of 100 days ..."

• we don't know how much it was squeezed into shorter and thicker after the Flood
• sea water is not a real thing before the Flood, salinity has been rising since
• do you get the impression all creationists consider chalk was precipitated from solution in the water?

What was deposited was arguably tons of shrimps and clams, with less thick and longer spread that was squeezed to vertical after the Flood, and it turned to limestone by chemical processes occurring after the Flood.

6:48 Yeah, you mentioned salinity of oceans, meaning your experiment of six centimetres per year (you don't mention from how high sea water) in a lab was not the correct experiment to refer to about it ... basics of argument : know what you are trying to argue against; basics in Flood geology : salinity rose in seas drastically after the Flood.

Temperatures would also have been different from your experiment, with the vertical weight of overall Flood deposits and the squeeze to more verticality contributing to raising temperatures.

III

10:13 What if palaeomagnetism is a less good clue to earlier positions than claimed?

11:22 And yes, I think the mainstream of YEC is wrong to accept Pangaea as a fact.

I think the pre-Flood single continent had four corners, a Riemann rectangle about like the one you get between Alaska, Cape Horn, Sydney and Kamtchatka (the modern version of four corners), with land mostly for at least North Atlantic, an Atlantis that sank about the time of Babel.

This continent would have had many inland seas, or big lakes, even supposing whales in the pre-Flood world could have lived in lake water, but after what I said of salinity, that should actually be a corrollary, yes, they could, there was not yet what we call sea water. As well as four major rivers, parts of the rivers beds are preserved as 1) White Nile-Congo-Amazonas, 2) Blue Nile-Ganges-Bramaputra, 3) Euphrates-(Black Sea)-Danube-Rhine-Thames-Liffey-St. Lawrence 4) Tigris-(Black Sea)-Don-Volga-Syr-Daria and Amu-Daria with Yang Tse Kiang. Now Euphrates and Tigris flow towards Persian gulf, Niles into the Mediterranean, back then the slant would have been reversed and they would have been flowing outward.

This outline of the pre-Flood continent disagrees with those of Pangaea, notably as to four corners corresponding to major outlets of major rivers.

I think this disagreement will be important for the answer to Baumann ...

IV

13:22 The evidence for catastrophic rifting would be indirect, as to evidence for the Flood and all the mud flows it involved.

Now catastrophic rifting is one young earth creationist specifically flood geologist model of how the Flood started.

It would not have left too many traces itself, since mostly covered by sediments from ensuing parts of the Flood.

In other words, it can not be proven and also not disproven - especially not by lack of direct evidence, since at least most places on earth such is not expected.

V

14:00 "you generate heat"

So, temperatures for "precipitation" if such of one km of chalk would have been different from your lab check with 6 cm from sea water?

Perhaps it would have set on a process of purifying chalk in what were previously piles of dead and buried shellfish from the Flood?

14:37 "the fact that there is no mechanism"

They do propose plates gliding apart and then colliding ... you seem to have concentrated on only the "colliding" part without bothering there was first a gliding apart?

14:58 "basic physics"

Before we get there, what about telling me where you get 2 m / s from?

Its involving Pangaea? If so, a fine revindication of my own model against the current main stream of YEC ... but I'm waiting to actually hear the source.

VI

16:45 I am not sure if your source says the tsunamis were one km high, or if you pretend they would have needed to be.

American mountains now c. 1 km high would have been far flatter back then.

God willing earth to remain together is also an option.

On this list of highest peaks, the elevations of all 100 would have been unknown pre-Flood:

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

So also the prominence (I suppose that means elevation above surrounding elevation) of the first 27.

Before 17:06 "earth does not have the potential energy"

Earth doesn't now. The video probably refers to the theory saying valves of underground water provided the potential energy ...

VII

18:11 Yes, the video you are reviewing is representing one model among many, and so Ken Ham's answer is different from that presented by the video.

VIII

19:17 "starting with the conclusion"

Er, no. Starting one specific debate where you would like to prefer to put conclusions of that debate - like geology, palaeontology and so forth.

But it is itself a conclusion of Genesis:

• being the word of God
• being history

And the latter is at least arguable even without it becoming the word of God when hagiographer and prophet Moses includes its materials in one volume, as it was already history before that.

The real difference is whether it's putting science or history first that constitutes a "putting the cart before the horse".

IX

20:02 The criticism was not against the crater of Yucatán existing, but against an impact of that size wiping out parts of the fauna that far away.

Baumann's answer is "non causa pro causa" or in layman's terms "strawman".

20:14 "failed to notice"

Have they ever done so?

Baumann's continuing his strawman.

"to create all these crater impacts"

Well, did it happen millions of years apart, or did it happen in a short period?

Because if it happened in a short period, we basically have one model for starting catastrophic plate tectonics.

If it happened millions of years apart, you have the Yucatán crater standing alone to create a mass extinction 65 million years ago. Which was what the polemics actually was against.

X

20:48 "so fossils are not really my thing"

They are a bit of mine, though.

Where the video places the "dinosaur peninsula" in North America, I have one possible solution that we talk of a post-Flood dinosaur population, c. 50 - 100 years after the Flood, wiped out by muddy land slides. Why? Bc the carbon dates provided by samples which Armitage formerly could get dated are carbon dates more recent than of last known Neanderthal, that is more recent than 35 000 BC, when we find a man who had a Neanderthal mother ...

But if the main sequence of fossils is after all from the Flood and not mud slides after it, we can get a good map of the pre-Flood world by fossils. In Ankerschlag we find a pterosaur, so it would have been on land, on an island or on sea, but not too far from land or from islands. In Lienz and Nussdorf outside Vienna, you find whales, so it would have been inland seas or lakes. In Nussdorf you also find a seal, so it can not have been too far from land.

I think the premiss of "dinosaur peninsula" is skewed, if it was after all a pre-Flood dino population, this would reflect a dino habitat. There were other habitats of other creatures, dinos were not alone on earth.

21:48 I think they are speaking of both Morrisson and Hell Creek formations in combination.

XI

23:18 I think they are referring to hydrological sorting of a more drastic type than Mississippi 1993.

That there is hydrological sorting in physics is documented by flume experiments. It's just that the land slides you observe are not big enough to make it.

The flume experiments deal with grains of sand of different sizes and the water flow is sufficient for grains of sand ... in the Flood it would have been so for transporting and sorting bones. And in Mississippi 1993 we would have been closer to the flume than to the Flood.

23:39 "without a location"

They showed a location on the photo, right?

If they did not give the location, it may be they don't want their find to get confiscated from their research by Smithsonian.

No Uniformitarian has to deal with this threat of having their research totally confiscated.

XII

24:50 "arguments are not evidence in science, you can argue till your face falls off"

Well, that is why I ditch this approach to science. Arguments from material evidence to thesis are in fact proof, if made correctly. Like leaving no alternative explanations unrefuted and so on.

And Baumann's refutations are badly argued as he never goes into an appropriate scaling up of the processes we observe, but argues from small examples that the results would be the same from causes much bigger - except on one thing, namely where it suits him to do a scaling up of consequences of friction to pretend the Flood would have burned earth or ripped it apart.

On a somewhat different issue, I have seen a similar "ultra-catastrophic" scaling up a few years ago. One pretended, raising carbon 14 levels from those appropriate for 40 000 years carbon age at Flood to present level would have involved so much cosmic radiation, it would have "fried" all except invertebrated into nuclear contamination death. I did a check up, and I think one thing they got wrong (though they didn't state the details) was confusing overall back-ground radiation with the part from cosmos.

In Europe, most places, overall radiation is at 3.something milliSievert per year. Ten times that, you already have 30+ which is "danger zone". But no immediate kill. Well, the part from cosmos is just 0.34 milliSieverts at medium hight of inhabited earth, lower further down, higher higher up. Ten times that is just 3.4 milliSievert per year, which is not dangerous. But another fault would be presume to know milliSievert and factor of faster C14 production as co-functions. How they relate is as results, more complex than mathematical functions, of three different magnitudes, and I got a refusal on testing the variables that I thought might produce 10 times faster C14 build up - which is all I need at its fastest. The test could have been performed and wasn't, by one Ilya Usoskin:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

Hemant took on Exodus 1

Everything Wrong With Exodus 1 in the Bible
Jan. 17, 2021 | Friendly Atheist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4X_wBQiOQE

I

0:51 This is not a novel, this is history.

At the very least supposed to be such.

Genealogies are prime proof the Thora was not written for entertainment purposes and only later mistaken for a historic account. You either have history or fake history, you do not have a novel. I suppose this genealogy should have finally proven that point to you?

I suppose ...

II

1:58 75 or 70?

Acts 7:14 And Joseph sending, called thither Jacob, his father, and all his kindred, seventy-five souls.
http://drbo.org/chapter/51007.htm

Exodus 1:1-5 1 These are the names of the sons of Israel that came into Egypt together with Jacob their father; they came in each with their whole family. 2 Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Judas, 3 Issachar, Zabulon, Benjamin, 4 Dan and Nephthalim, Gad and Aser. 5 But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls [born] of Jacob were seventy-five.
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=1

St. Stephen quoted a text agreeing with the Septuagint, which I just quoted.

III

2:56 "to a countless number of people"

We are talking c. 1590 BC, 80 years before the actual Exodus (the event).

They would still not be quite as numerous as at the event. In Numbers we come to how numerous they were in terms of full grown men in 1510 BC:

Ruben : forty-six thousand five hundred
Simeon : Fifty-nine thousand three hundred
Gad : Forty-five thousand six hundred and fifty

Judah : seventy-four thousand six hundred
Issachar : fifty-four thousand four hundred
Zabulon : Fifty-seven thousand four hundred

Jo-Ephraim : Forty thousand five hundred
Jo-Manasses : Thirty-two thousand two hundred
Benjamin : Thirty-five thousand four hundred

Dan : Sixty-two thousand seven hundred
Aser : Forty-one thousand and five hundred
Nephthali : Fifty-three thousand four hundred

Levites, not counted.

46 500 040 06 0500 59 300 090 15 0800 45 650 130 20 1400 50 74 600 200 24 2000 54 400 250 28 2400 57 400 300 35 2800 40 500 340 35 3300 32 200 370 37 3500 35 400 400 42 3900 550 000 62 700 460 44 4600 048 000 41 500 500 45 5100 005 550 53 400 550 48 5500 603 550

http://drbo.org/chapter/04001.htm

603 550 - multiply by five for family of each 3 017 750.

In how many years? Joseph took his family to Egypt c. 1725 BC, Exodus occurred in 1510 BC. Makes 215 years.

3 017 750 / 70 - I suppose that would be not counting Levites from first batch - equals 43 112. If we get to how many generations, this would be about 6 generations. 6th root of 43112 = 5.92 per generation. Sounds reasonable. Or if you think 35 years is long for a generation (though it wasn't between Levi and Moses, one generation before the ones in Numbers 1), you get even more generations, and even less multiplication per generation.

No reproductive issues for anyone ever ... well, sounds like a fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham.

IV

4:44 In reference to Exodus 1:11 Therefore he set over them masters of the works, to afflict them with burdens, and they built for Pharao cities of tabernacles, Phithom and Ramesses.

It doesn't say each Israelite became individually a slave under a separate master, it's more like collective slavery, like drafted labour ... (probably reminiscent of what Nimrod did at Göbekli Tepe, a k a Babel).

V

5:32 Maybe stop with the slavery!

Yeah! If you had only been around while people like - presumably - Sesostris III were running amuck, you might have made a difference!

Three cheers for the wisdom of Hemant Mehta! It's 20/20 (like I suppose is not quite unusual for hindsight).

Did no one consider this?

People who are plotting to oppress other people are often somewhat ... blind? ... as to consequences.

Did the Israelites just go along with this plan?

Have you heard of how Egyptians dealt with rebels from elsewhere? Have you seen Aida, where Radamès is introduced counting hands of enemies?

While Israelites were already many, they were not outnumbering Egyptians. And they were not in the army.

Perhaps general passivity of Jews under Hitler power was partly meant to show - yes, this could happen. A bit like general passivity of Russians under Commie party too.

5:54 but now they are giving up

We would probably have to give the Pharao some credit for capacity, if not accuracy, of foresight and of projecting tendencies already in the go ...

5:57 The battle will come, God will battle for Israel ...

VI

7:04 "How are there only two midwives"

More troubling still, why are Israelites accepting Egyptian midwives.

I say the latter problem shows how Israelites, while numerous, were not in a mood for opposing Egyptian administration.

The "only two" could either be the names are symbols (I haven't checked what they mean) or these particular two ones are the ones from whom Moses finally got this report, while many others were doing the same thing without being named, perhaps even without answering ... or it could be as simple as these two were ministers of midwifery and acted as first Pharao's officers to the others, then as their delegates to him.

"and yet only two people had the job"

Doesn't say in the text. Obviously, you cannot even in a "big house" (the Pharao is actually so named for his palace, literally "big house") assemble all the active midwives of a whole country.

He and they were like WHO officers these days ... you don't have all medical practitioners assembled in the buildings of WHO.

VII

8:27 Hebrew resistance at its pre-Moses peak - delivering at home without going to a midwife.

"Sturdy" means the Hebrew women were not afraid of dying in childbirth, not that their uteri are magical. They preferred giving birth with no professional midwife and taking risks over risking the lives of boy children.

Probably before the midwife arrives refers to an official duty of calling midwives. Here is the translation in Douay Rheims, clearly supporting of my conjecture:

They answered: The Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women: for they themselves are skillful in the office of a midwife; and they are delivered before we come to them.

The really troubling thing is, Pharao relied on socialised medicine for committing child murder, does that ring any kind of bell to anyone ....?

starofjustice1

"The really troubling thing is, Pharao relied on socialised medicine for committing child murder, does that ring any kind of bell to anyone ....?"

No.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@starofjustice1 well, obviously yes.

The project is described as murder, the details make sense if anyone in Egypt was supposed to call official midwives (aka socialised medicine).

And it probably rings a bell to someone else ...

VIII

10:19 And thankfully, Sesostris III (if it was him) died before the new version of the child killing policy had much effect. See next chapter.

Hitler or Lenin - Who Was Worse?

I have not yet seen the actual video by Jimmy Akin:

What Was Adolph Hitler's Religion? - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
15 mars 2019 | Jimmy Akin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU1AG3hlG0M

I objected, initially, to the description, and this dialogue ensued with some delay:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Adolf Hitler may have been the most sinister figure of the 20th century."

I'd think Lenin might be that?

Jimmy Akin

The term "sinister" was used precisely because it has a subjective element and would not exclude consideration of individuals such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jimmy Akin I was not speaking of "sinister" as objectionable, I was speaking of "most" so.

In other words, I think, while Hitler was bad, Lenin was worse.

Sparky

Hitler’s stated intentions and ideology were probably the most sinister, even though communism objectively caused (and continues to cause) far more death and suffering. What makes socialism so much more dangerous and insidious is that it is sugar coated with noble ideals and good intentions like equality, rationality and standing up for the little guy.

To give Lenin credit he was an idealist and actually believed communism is great and is the way of the future. And back in his day there were no examples of what a horrible idea it is in practice. The communists who came after him like Stalin were power hungry thugs that were cynical and in it for money and power.

T Z

Pelosi, Hillary, Kamala, Obama, Biden...pretty sinister successors.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sparky Get a grip. Look at the history of Tambov, back in precisely his days.

"The communists who came after him like Stalin"

Stalin was part of Lenin's government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#In_Lenin's_government

"To give Lenin credit he was an idealist and actually believed communism is great and is the way of the future."

Exact same words could without absurdity be stated about Hitler. One difference : Hitler targetted mainly non-German ethnics. Gipsies, Jews, people with a German and a Black parent. To a Russian, Communism would involve targetting mainly his own people, just different classes. To a Jew in Russia, it would have been like a kind of Jewish National Socialism.

@Sparky "sugar coated with noble ideals and good intentions like equality, rationality and standing up for the little guy."

Like these were lacking in stated intentions of National Socialism?

Or like Communism was any closer to actually fulfilling it?

Equality Commie version : peasants of Tambov are killed under Lenin, because they are private proprietors, Kulaks, who are not solidaric enough.

Equality NS version : from a certain size on, in an enterprise the executive dines with the workers. He has a special room where he can exceptionally dine with guests, business partners, this special room is also open for syndical proceedings for workers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:50 in video, everyone knows that Adolf Hitler is the most sinister person of the 20th C.

No, as said, Lenin was worse.

H 72 070 02
I 73 140 05
T 84 220 09
L 76 290 15
E 69 350 24
R 82 430 26 = 456, add 160 for lower case = 616

What about Iljitj Uljanov (Swedish spelling, he had Swedish-German heritage)

I 73 070 03
U 85 150 08
L 76 220 14
J 74 290 18
A 65 350 23
N 78 420 31
O 79 490 40
V 86 570 46 = 616 all in upper case

And his first name, as a Pole hears the genitive or accusative?

W 87 080 07
L 76 150 13
A 65 210 18
D 68 270 26
I 73 340 29
M 77 410 36
I 73 480 39
R 82 560 41
A 65 620 46 = 666, also all in upper case, and no such value for Hitler, as far as I know (101 for A is not a serious taker, since no such correspondence between letters and numbers is in regular use, it's not Greek, it's not Hebrew and it's not ASCII).

A bit later on, an "ideology of war and racism and hatred" - what about an ideology of revolution, classism and hatred?

Primary, Secondary, Early On Secondary (quora)

How do historians use primary sources to study the past?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-historians-use-primary-sources-to-study-the-past/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl
just now
none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

A primary source for the past or for a past event is one which is from the past itself or from as close to the past event itself as to make it contemporaneous.

Other sources are secondary, but compilations of quotes from primary sources still count as primary, unless known to be inaccurate.

If all primary sources say a thing and secondary sources from your time would dispute that, and it is about historic fact, not theologic interpretation, I’d go with the primary sources. For instance, there are secondary sources about St. Francis of Assisi claiming there were no miracles, but all the primary sources like the lives by Thomas of Celano or Three Companions, as well as the early on secondary source Fioretti say he made miracles, I’d say he made miracles.

If however you want to limit primary sources for St. Patrick to his autobiography (in which for humility he mentions no miracles) and to his Letter to Coroticus and early on secondary sources say he did miracles, I’d say he did miracles despite the silence of the sources considered as primary. Here I differ from the current practise of historians.

As long as it is about miracles. But when it comes to lives of Roman Emperors after AD 30 and before Trajan or Hadrian, historians are very fine with using early on secondary sources, like Tacitus or Sueton, as equivalent for primary, which we lack for that period.

How We Don't Know The Earth Is That Ancient - Part II

How we Don't Know the Earth is Deep Time Ancient (Answering First Part of a Video) · How We Don't Know The Earth Is That Ancient - Part II

Second half of this video:

How We Know The Earth Is Ancient
7th April 2020 | PBS Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAgiHreswj0

I

8:03 "Figuring out the initial content is typically impossible - at least directly"

Hear, hear!

5700 years? Thought it was 5730!

8:40 "resulting in a constant proportion of C-14 within the atmospheric CO2"

We know it is in fact not completely constant. And I here mean it is admitted by your side. Not just we Creationists.

Since Industrial Revolution it has gone down. 1950 carbon dates as 1750, until you fix that with calibration.

Between c. 760 BC and 450 BC, the uncalibrated readings are around 550. Since Rome was founded in 753 BC and became a Republic in 510 BC, carbon dates of earliest clear Rome have been taken - I'd say mistakenly - to indicate Rome was actually founded c. 550 BC, by Etruscans like the Tarquins. Just a few decades before going Republic.

See here for the calibration:

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

9:11 "only accurate to about 10 half lives, around 50 000 years"

If as much.

If there was a change in cosmic radiation, leading to very low carbon 14 production up to Flood, very high from Flood to Babel, gradually lowering to present one after Babel, and Babel (real dates 2607 to 2556 BC, or a little narrower) is Göbekli Tepe (carbon dates 9600 to 8600 BC), the Biblical chronology is adequate.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

So, sth carbon dated 50 000 years BP would be the centuries preceding the Flood (which happened 2957 BC).

II

9:23 710 million vs 4.5 billion years for two isotopes of Uranium.

Problem is - how do you even remotely double check such a half life against radioactive date matching historical one? With carbon, we can double check and do double check the 5730 years' halflife by such and such a number of years ago in 16th C. matching such and such a remainder c. 95 pmC.

With carbon, even 11 years and some fractions will get you down to 0.9986 of the content you start with, 5730 : 512 matching 512th root of 0.5.

But how do you get to check 1 386 718.75 years against recorded historic fact? You don't.

9:33 With both decaying to different isotopes of lead ...

Meaning the isotopes of lead found in contact with Uranium is then used to measure original content of Uranium?

This is lots less secure than "measuring" original content of C-14. For that one, not too far back (I disagree where limit goes), tree rings, and most definitely historic dates can by calibration imply that original content was near 100 pmC - or that it wasn't, if you accept the Bible as history. If you go back far enough.

9:58 Any lead in a zircon came from uranium?

CMI has answered a question involving this point (I don't feel I'm obliged to use only my own material in answering):

"My comment about the inclusion of uranium and exclusion of lead during the formation of zircon crystals was just a repeat of an assertion made by Dr Payne. Not being a chemist, a mineralogist or a metallurgist, I have no reason to dispute this claim and, hence, did not include any further discussion. I would note, however, that the efficiency of the exclusion was not mentioned (i.e. is 100% of any lead excluded from the crystal or, perhaps, less than 100%). Nor was there discussion about how well the experimental conditions that have been mentioned would have represented the situation within crystallizing magmas. Uniformitarians assume magmas crystallized slowly over millions of years under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium. However, the biblical scenario suggests magmas crystallized quickly, and anticipates non-equilibrium conditions, and this would affect the way lead would have been incorporated in the zircon crystals."

More on radioactive dating problems
Published: 20 June 2015 (GMT+10) [feedback]
https://creation.com/radioactive-dating-problems

10:22 On same article, Tas Walker answers (quoted by author) for Concordia technique, that usually the curves do not match up. And if there were more than one metamorphic event, the intersection of curves is meaningless.

III

10:56 No, actually they did not prove that anything was many millions of light years away.

The series of such "cosmic distance scale" beyond "within Solar System, i e from alpha Centauri four light years away, depends on accepting Heliocentrism as true and then c. 20 (or 25?) arc seconds back and forth each year as "aberration" and after that the minor variations around that value as "parallax" both phenomena depending on Earth moving in space, the first in relation to light and the second in relation to light sources.

If instead it is light sources, i e stars, that are moved by angels, this distance scale drops flat down. This includes the "much older universe" you are talking about.

IV

12:43 "several independent measures"

Many of which aren't even zircon ... here is what CMI answered back in 1982:

In Brief
This article is from Creation 5(1):17, June 1982
https://creation.com/in-brief-summary-of-technical-article-for-the-layman

The complaint about not removing refuted clutter in "proofs" seems to remain since then.

Zack Pearlman tried to tell me not to listen to Lizzie Reezay

It so happens, I was probably a Catholic before she was even born. Drop probably, I was Catholic by 20, in 1988, and she is NOT thirty.

Zack Pearlman

@Hans-Georg Lundahl There is no other explanation other than Mary had sex. Jesus was the only virgin birth.

“Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” (Matthew 13:55–56)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zack Pearlman It is not said the brothers are also sons of the carpenter, and if they were they can very well have been so from a previous marriage he was widowed from.

Whether they were sons of St. Joseph from his previous wife or cousins, the reason why they are called "brothers" is not that Mary gave birth to them.

Deuteronomy 25 would be an adequate explanation for calling them brothers even if they weren't St. Joseph's sons from a previous marriage, and Proto-Gospel of St. James says they (including himself, the author or purported such James) were St. Joseph's sons from a previous marriage and he was widowed before the betrothal to the Blessed Virgin.

You have once again failed to argue anything from the Bible against the perpetual virginity.

Zack Pearlman

@Hans-Georg Lundahl That's because you Catholic story is edited to fit the lies the Pope tells. The Church of England Bible is truthful and based on the original Scriptures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zack Pearlman In normal language, brother (and sister) can be used for full sibling, same two parents, half sibling, sharing only one parent, and step sibling.

In Biblical context, one can wonder whether it cannot also be like calling Booz the brother of Mahalon and Chelion, even if he was no son of Elimelech and Noemi. See Deuteronomy 25. If the reference is not to St. Joseph's first marriage but to cousins, this would be the reason the word brother is used.

English Church Bible for Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

You claim the Catholic story is edited to cater to the Pope's lies?

Here is Douai Rheims (a Catholic Bible) for Matthew 13:[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: [56] And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

Challoner commenting on it disagrees with Proto-Gospel of St. James and goes for cousins:

[55] "His brethren": These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27. 56; St. John 19. 25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour.

Now, you claimed the Perpetual Virginity is "the Pope's lies". When Helvidius attacked it and St. Jerome defended it, the Pope St. Damasus I did not intervene. The Perpetual Virginity was believed by all who translated King James version, and it was believed by Luther and Calvin as well as by Cranmer.

It is believed by Orthodox, by Copts, by Armenians, by Assyrians too.

It is you "against the world" and I mean the Christian world. I refuse to budge an inch from the Catholic doctrine to accomodate to a heretic who thinks he knows Scripture better than the Church.

Zack Pearlman

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well how many popes have there been since Henry VIII created the Church of England compared to how many Monarchs of England. God clearly loves the Church of England more because our Monarchs live FAR longer than your Pope. Ours is the true Christian word.

We do not demand money from worshipers like the Catholics do or do you not remember what Jesus did the the money changers in the Temple?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zack Pearlman "Well how many popes have there been since Henry VIII created the Church of England compared to how many Monarchs of England. God clearly loves the Church of England more because our Monarchs live FAR longer than your Pope."

More like : our popes are older when becoming so. Age of many of your monarchs (as with any monarchy), comparable to when many popes became bishops of their first see.

Elizabeth II was 26. Queen Victoria was 18.
Pope St. Pius X was 68, Pope St. Pius V was 62.

"Ours is the true Christian word."

Tell me when CoE stopped believing the Perpetual Virginity. It was not in the time of Henry VIII, for sure.

But seriously, you admitted Henry VIII founded it, while Christ founded the Catholic Church (within four other somewhat realistic options excluding all Protestant sects).

"We do not demand money from worshipers like the Catholics do or do you not remember what Jesus did the the money changers in the Temple?"

The money changers were not collecting tithes to the priesthood. Nor accepting gifts, if a box of spices was korban, they did not see it. (Unless it was from them).

I checked:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : English Kings and Roman Popes since 1534
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2021/01/english-kings-and-roman-popes-since-1534.html

Zack Pearlman

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Jesus didn't Create the Catholic church it was created after his ascension to Heaven. and yes the CoE has never believed in the perpetual virginity. We dont revere Mary. Only the son of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zack Pearlman "the CoE has never believed in the perpetual virginity"

False.

"Jesus didn't Create the Catholic church"

He certainly didn't create any church that started 1501 years after His Ascension!

So, what Church did He create? We can both agree, I hope, He didn't create the Established CoE in 1534. You don't agree it was the Catholic Church He created.

Was it EO, Copts, Armenians or Assyrians?

"We dont revere Mary."

I get a very deep gut feeling you are only posing as CoE. If you had added "as the Catholics do" ... you'd have been believable.

"Only the son of God."

Can you call Jesus God, THE LORD (Adonai) in the Flesh? Do you adore Him?

Or do you only call Him "son of God" and do you only revere Him? In the latter case, it is very clear you are not CoE.

Zack Pearlman

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You no nothing of CoE. CoE doesn't believe in the perpetual virginity, it actually teaches that Mary and Joseph and many kids after Jesus. Also The CoE has never revered Mary, she is just a woman God used to bring his son to the Earth.

This is why CoE split from the Catholic church, because you lot are too pigheaded. If Heaven is real there probably wont any Catholic there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zack Pearlman I really don't think you know the CoE very well.

Did you know it has as honorary Reformers : Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin and Cranmer?

While only Cranmer was actually Anglican, here is Calvin:

Verse 55
55.Is not this the carpenter’s son? It was, we are aware, by the wonderful purpose of God, that Christ remained in private life till he was thirty years of age. Most improperly and unjustly, therefore, were the inhabitants of Nazareth offended on this account; for they ought rather to have received him with reverence, as one who had suddenly come down from heaven. They see God working in Christ, and intentionally turn away their eyes from this sight, to behold Joseph, and Mary, and all his relatives; thus interposing a veil to shut out the clearest light. The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned. (347)

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/matthew-13.html

Let's look at the footnote: - no, it's not clickable.

I looked for Luther, not there, but here is John Wesley:

Verse 55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

The carpenter's son — The Greek, word means, one that works either in wood, iron, or stone.

His brethren — Our kinsmen. They were the sons of Mary, sister to the virgin, and wife of Cleophas or Alpheus.

James — Styled by St. Paul also, the Lord's brother, Galatians 1:19. Simon - Surnamed the Canaanite.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/wen/matthew-13.html

While he founded Methodism, he started as an Anglican cleric. Note, now there is an ecumenism between Anglicans, Methodists, Moravians and Lutherans, so as a former Lutheran I should be very well aware of trends in Anglicanism (Swedish Church, Lutheran, also has High Church, Low Church, Broad Church).

See also some Anglican answers on this Anglican forum to this question:

https://forums.anglican.net/threads/what-is-the-anglican-churchs-view-of-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary.2064/

Jimmy Akin Believed Nothing with Covid Vaccinations has to do with Apocalypse 13

Here is where he said so, with Pints with Aquinas:

Mark of the Beast + Other COVID Conspiracy Theories w/ Jimmy Akin
9th Jan. 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1uiwI-RHJw

Here is my comment:

1:53 It so happens, "hand" and "forehead" are not the only places a mark could go, even if they are standard translations of "cheir" and "metopon".

Cheir involves anything from ellbow to fingertips.
Metopon has a variety of meanings, one of which is the face cover of Greek helmets, the word is so found in Authenriet, the lexicon of Homeric Greek. Now, before you object that St. John wrote koiné, not Homeric Greek, Homer was still read.

Iliad A' is the first literary work in which the false god Apollon is called Apollyon, also found in Apocalypse.

Some false gods were mainly non-entities, so while demons could creep in with the cult dedicated to them, the pagans did not necessarily have the means of realising those gods were demons, because they weren't, they were non-entities. I'd not cite "Helios", since I believe an angel is guiding the Sun, but I can cite "Helios as first cousin of the most high." And Hermes overall would have been a non-entity corresponding to such various different entities as guardian angels, magician Hermes Trismegistos, magician Odin, non-factual communications between non-extant Homeric gods.
Some had lived as men : Hercules, Hippolytus, Romulus, I'm fine with adding Krishna and Odin.
But some were directly involved, even as the Pagans themselves saw it, with demonic activity, like self fulfilling catastrophic prophecies or giving and then withdrawing plague - which was the issue with Apollyon in Iliad A'.

May I remind you what the Hippocratic oath swears by? (Citing, not reciting) : "I swear by Apollon, Asklepios and Hygieia".

I do not know what the RNA-vaccine will do to you, but I don't like what I have heard. In making it, one used first fullblown viruses cultivated in human fetal cells, and only then one isolated a part of the genome (a piece of DNA from the shell) and made bacteria produce it without more fetal cells. The more classic vaccine is using disactivted viruses that were cultivated on ... yeah, you guessed it. Human fetal cells.

Drew on Science Accepting "Christianity"

How to Fit Christianity with Science (feat. Aron Ra)
4th May 2018 | Genetically Modified Skeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xBXomSRwa0

I

0:17 Not Catholic. Neo-Catholic.

II

1:22 Not just with a literal reading of the OT, but also with Marc 10:6.

1:27 c. 6000 years ago = Masoretic / Vulgate version of genealogies.
c. 7200 - 7500 years ago = LXX version of genealogies and some other choices of timing

III

2:04 In fact, if someone is just taking creation days as long periods, but leaves genealogies, I don't count him as an outright heretic.

It does conflict with Marc 10:6, but he could be unaware of that, but at least it leaves sufficient small number of sufficient long and overlapping generations between Adam and the writing down of Genesis. This was the position of Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux a bit more than 100 years ago. It was also before carbon dates existed.

IF you think the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are "some kind of metaphor" you are in trouble.

Getting Adam 40 000 years back in time or more leaves no room for historic transmission being reliable up to Joseph in Egypt and Moses. Especially as the much shorter genealogies would be an example of transmission being garbled.

Allowing men existing 40 000 years more to be pre-Adamites conflicts with some important anti-racist doctrine of the Catholic Church. Why? It would not allow a reasonable confidence all men descend from Adam and are eligible for Christ's salvation.

IV

2:44 As determined by science.

You mean - as guessed by scientists? If not, you argue why scientists have a right on this one to be considered as "representing science" rather than just one more or rather less scientific position.

V

3:18 We certainly know that the Sun's light is now what illuminates the day. So did presumably Moses.

3:25 sufficient heat was provided with sufficient light a few days before the Sun. Obviously.

VI

4:11 "pretty well explains how humans developed"

Like how language developed?

Take a look at how I dealt with this attempt by an amateur linguist:

How Did Language Start? - Part 1
27.VII.2020 | Simon Roper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5-gkQmFCiM

How did Language Start? - Part 2: Primate Communication
28.VIII.2020 | Simon Roper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLNJyV_4_FU

my response to both:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : How did language start (a Creationist criticism of Evolutionist Answer)
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/08/how-did-language-start-part-1-27.html

Simon Roper made a third one, but it added nothing about the actual process ...

VII

9:13 Yeah, thank you.

Believing what "science" says about human origins does conflict with Catholic dogma. Specifically on original sin.

I'm sticking with Bible and Church Fathers, obviously.

9:31 Plus, obviously, with normal Catholic metaphysics on human soul-spirit.

Thanks again, for noting!

Noted it myself in 2014:

Creation vs. Evolution : Scenario impossible
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/01/scenario-impossible.html

9:54 "they have the same mental capacity"

Again, a major conflict with Catholic scholasticism, as normally it is parts of our mental capacity that prove us spiritual and endowed with immortal, since immaterial, souls.

VIII

10:30 Oral tradition ...

Now within the Biblical timeline, this is not really a problem. Between Homer and Peisistratus, for a comparable number of minimally overlapping generations, Iliad and Odyssey were preserved, and Genesis 2 - 11 (taking Genesis 1 as a vision by Moses) are just a little bit more than 1st song of the Iliad (1st out of 24, same number as for Odyssey):

Creation vs. Evolution : 6078 Words
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/12/6078-words.html

Obviously, it would have been very different if Adam and Eve had lived 78000 years ago ...

IX

11:31 If all these things can happen naturally, as we observe them ...

Can they?

We do not observe the putting in place of these things. We do not observe them happening in contrast with previous states of the universe.

We have observed probable speciation, or missed it, but seen both sides of it (pigeons have arguably undergone specification between Classical Antiquity and Darwin), but we have NOT observed the development of one new gene giving a new function that was not just a variation on an older one, NOR the development of one new type of cell.

We have not observed animal systems of communication developing into human language.

We have not observed either Big Bang or Solar Nebula actually happen.

All of these are guesses, and if any of these are for some reason impossible, we cannot retort that we observed them happen.

X

11:56 Now we know those things behave according to natural forces ...

You actually do not know the Thomistic theory of day and night and of seasons (God turning universe from East to West each day, angels turning several bodies West to East along Zodiac, each month for Moon, each year for Sun) is wrong.

You only know it is out of fashion with scientists.

Angels turning - make that angels moving.

12:19 "humanity has said that before and later found the explanation to be naturalistic"

Key issue : "later found". How so "found"? Getting a certain theory promoted among scientific community? Or actually proving?

In the latter case, why don't you proceed to prove Heliocentrism with only inertial and gravitational forces acting by only material masses of Sun and planets and other stars is in fact only possible truth, rather than presume this as a given?

XI

12:26 You can accurately observe one supernatural cause all the time, namely your own mind doing things that your material body cannot explain the details of.

What exact movements you did with your tongue or lips or I am doing with my fingers on the key board, depend on the ideas we are trying to convey, that being accurately observable as spiritual, and not as depending on the gravitation or intensity of muscular movements opposing it.

XII

12:47 No, it is not evident they are metaphorical only.

It only becomes pseudo-evident if you presume a very big lot on those "scientific" ideas.

12:56 Not just holy texts.

If it didn't happen, how is it different from Silmarillion?

Creation vs. Evolution : Let's Not Silmarillionise the Genesis, Shan't We?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/01/lets-not-silmarillionise-genesis-shant.html

13:12 The alternative to "falsehoods meant to be taken literally" is obviouly truths meant to be taken literally.

The idea of them being metaphors only is very late and cannot be substantiated in earlier Church tradition.

XIII

13:45 You are misrepresenting Hebrews 11:1 grossly.

It doesn't say faith is things hoped for, it says it is their substance. In other words a good reason that the hope is truly there.

And as to "evidence of things not seen" some take faith in scientists (like AronRa) as a substitute for the Christian faith.

XIV

A final note on Neanderthals, Heidelbergians, etc.

I think Neanderthals and Heidelbergians (aka Antecessor, aka Denisovan) were simply pre-Flood races of man.

Post-Flood man is mainly from Cro-Magnon race, with admixture of the other ones.

I think Homo Erectus was an extreme form of Denisovan - and that he's dated with other methods than C14, isn't really older, but samples are from Flood - 2957 BC.

Lizzie Reezay took on Vatican II Opposers, Vaccines and Our Lord's Brothers and Sisters

Did Jesus have siblings? Vatican 2 HATERS. Writing A BOOK! Why I WON'T veil at Mass! | Ask Lizzie 33
7th Jan. 2021 | LizziesAnswers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuZ2aks6c1k

I

2:19 "not for the vaccine"
Oh yes, it does. You cannot get research on a specific vaccine without cultivating the pathogen.

With bacteria, it's no problem.

With viruses, it used to be with bovine livers back at original mass produced small pox vaccine, but now animal cells are abandoned in favour of cell lines from aborted feti.

What is however decades back is the abortion that the cell lines are from.

I thought this was an anti-vaxxer wild claim, but here you have a hospital saying so:

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia : News & Views: Why Were Fetal Cells Used to Make Certain Vaccines?
Published on Apr 25, 2017 in Vaccine Update for Healthcare Providers
https://www.chop.edu/news/news-views-why-were-fetal-cells-used-make-certain-vaccines

II

3:44 "we just trust Church authority"

After 1986, can "John Paul II" and his successors be safely claimed to represent it?

You know that in divine law, deposition from Church jurisdiction is immediate on preaching heresy, as was actually stated by Pope St. Celestine I in 430 AD, just before the Council of Ephesus.

Dimond brothers made a well researched video on the topic:

Great Proof Texts For Sedevacantism Show That Francis Is Not The Pope
8th Jan. 2021 vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfdJ0g5dnho

You can of course say they don't represent the majority of Catholics, which is true if Vatican II accepters and Novus Ordo accepters count as such, but that doesn't mean they don't represent reality - since reality is not by majority vote.

III

14:07 I think the actual Greek for cousin is "exadelphos, exadelphe" or "anepsios, anepsia".

My explanation why the word is used has to do with Deuteronomy 25 (I think the chapter was) with Ruth : closest male relative having the right and duty to marry widow and make a child who counts as child of a man deceased without male heirs. Moses only spoke of brothers, but Ruth shows actual application involves wider family relations if no live brothers are available.

Greek Kinship Terminology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
M. Miller, extract
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/abs/greek-kinship-terminology/C06B1DC2DFA4A7B3A00615D06A7EDA9E

Zack Pearlman

Jesus had many siblings. James, Joseph, Judas and Simon, ALL mentioned in the Bible (Mark (6:3) Matthew (13:55–56)). They have also found James' Ossuary (the place his bones were put after his body decomposed). This girl knows nothing about the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zack Pearlman The question is not whether they existed, but why they are called "brothers".

Someone who pretends to know the Bible but thinks Mary gave birth to them is actually deviating into heresy.

Continued

on separate post Zack Pearlman tried to tell me not to listen to Lizzie Reezay

IV

20:00 While St. Irenaeus is your patron saint from confirmation, I think you have one Mrs Elisabeth Cohen - first cousin of the mother of God - as patron saint too.

V

21:53 Have you noted how many Atheists have a beef with both Catholic institutions and Calvinist redemption theology without realising these things don't belong together.

VI

One more on vaccine:

Dr Yeadon’s (former Pfizer VP) Coronavirus Vaccine Safety Petition
POSTED ON DEC 4, 2020 on Dryburgh.com
https://dryburgh.com/mike-yeadon-coronavirus-vaccine-safety-concerns-petition/

Position of St. Robert not just his opinion, but the teaching of Pope St. Celestine I

Great Proof Texts For Sedevacantism Show That Francis Is Not The Pope
8th Jan. 2021 vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfdJ0g5dnho

I

4:23 So, by 1990, since 1986, it had been clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the Chair of St. Peter was vacant?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Introibo's Latest Answer Deserves Some Philology
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/10/introibos-latest-answer-deserves-some.html

II

4:55 Ne tamen vel ad tempus, eius videatur valere sententia, qui in se iam divinam sententiam provocarat ...

Pope St. Celestine I, To the Clergy and People of Constantinople, AD 430.

Thank you for the reference! Does it have a number in Denzinger too?

III

7:31 Paul Natterer, I think formerly SSPX, in his sermon series, late 80's, at least had the honesty to admit his position is not that of this saint, but of Cajetan. He did not cite or presumably think over St. Celestine 430.

IV

9:05 "Non è lecito convencerli della tua fede. Il proselitismo è il veleno oiù forte contro il cammino ecumenico"

Added to the "with a magic wand quote" for reference of his being heretic.

Creation vs. Evolution : Two "Magic Wand" quotes
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/01/two-magic-wand-quotes.html

Reference this time : Speech to a group of Lutherans, Paul VI Hall, Oct 13 2016 ... noted. Anniversary of Fatima too ...

V

9:39 "sin against ecumenism"
nuff said ... grazie Bergoglio, sappiamo che sei erético ... o che prédichi l'eregìa

VI

21:50 "is that the seat of St. Peter is vacant"

Does not follow from non-papacy of Francis, you would also have to show that none of Palmarians, Bawdenites, adherents of Boniface X have a real Pope.

I had previously taken "Alexander IX" as a Feeneyite claimant, also Conclavist or claiming election by Imperfect Council later perfected by him or predecessor, but this has after I thought so been claimed to have been an internet stunt.

With Colinists, at least those adherring since 1968 to "John Gregory" are not under a true Pope since he admitted female clergy.