Jackson Crawford and PIE Revisited

Indo-European Languages: An Intro. (37 Min.)
16th Sept. 2020 | Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UQnSmEzxMI

First part of the video include arguments for PIE unity:

3:39 The real phonetic relationship can however occur also between languages with vocabulary related by loans, especially if the loans are some way back.

The Arabic loans in Persian have arguably undergone sound changes different in Persian to in Arabic since c. 900 AD.

The shared vocabulary in Arabic and Persian exceeds that between English and Russian.

How does this relate to IE relations?

Let's take "he was a good man" German and Latin:

Er war ein guter Mann = etym. **Is vora(t) unus fadus mannus. (fadus or hadus)
Is erat bonus vir = etym. **Er ere(t) ein zwin Wer.

Between Germanic and Italo-Celtic there are other differences than sound correspondences!

The t ending in parenthesis ... if IE -t would have been recycled after vowel to form **eret for erat, then the war would correspond to **vora, if not, it could correspond to **vorat.

5:11 What IE langs have a complete set of:

* pater / father
* mater / meter / mother
* suns / son
* thugater / daughter
* frater / brother
* soror / sister

To my best knowledge, the complete set is Germanic only. Slavic, Baltic, Gothic and Brythonic don't have "pater", in Lithuanian "moteris" is woman and "motine" is mother, in Slavic you don't have "mat-er, but mat-ka" in Celtic and Italic son and daughter get replaced, in Greek frater is nearly and soror totally missing like in Spanish (the tenants of PIE against Trubetskoy could obviously say "for the same reason") ... in Indic, you don't have a "shunush" you have a "putra" ....

And in case you think loans of kinship words don't happen, look at the word "cousin" outside French.

Even Anatolian lacks the "pater" gloss, as father is attas in Nesili.

6:01 You can perhaps predict the form of words in English, but not in Greek.

Zugon and hos are both from PIE reconstructed initial yod : yugom, yos (cognate with Latin is, German er)

7:02 And from eleven to ninetynine, except twenty, you have dissimilarity across the board, as for thousand.

If a trade language or cult language (sacrificial or for auguries) imposed its numerals, it would make sense that certain numerals got more imposed than others.

The pronouns for "me" and "thee" seem to be related in Finnish, as well as verb endings sg and pl 1st and 2nd persons ... you could say Nostratic (even more incompatible with Biblical post-Flood chronology than PIE), you could say Finnish was a hybrid or you can say IE langs are hybrids between them (and in some cases between them and Finnish) = Sprachbund / areal features = theory of Trubetskoy.

7:50 Greater similarity in older stages = how about closer to time of mutual (or common) influence?

French is more Germanic in 1200 than now. It does not have a common ancestor with Francic after PIE.

7:54 Bulgarian and Romanian look more like each other than Old Slavonic and Latin do. I suppose.

8:11 What are your PIE glosses for "hand" and "head"? Is "arm" identic with "hand" or with "shoulder" or distinct from both? Teeth and tongue, are they 1) in the "mouth" 2) in "ore" / "w usty" (if I got Polish declinsion right) 3) en to "stomati" 4) "burnoje"? Is "neck" originally the "hals" / "collum" gloss (Italo-Celtic and Germanic) or another one?

Leonardo7772012

@Leonardo7772012

In dutch, neck can be nek or hals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Leonardo7772012 Did you watch the video? Do you know anything about comparative linguistics?

The video is about reconstructing Proto-Indo-European, not about reconstructing Proto-Germanic.

For Germanic, I have no doubts it's a language family. It nearly certainly had "hals" for either throat or all of the neck and a word like "neck" for (based on German and Scandinavian) the back of the neck.

I just looked up a branch of which I have NO indication that it had the gloss "hals" ... Indo-Iranian, easy example on google translate (non ideal, he preferred Sanskrit), Hindi.

I see "garadan", "gala" (no, it's not cognate with "hals" or "collum" -- that should start with ç, like "çakra", same root meaning "turning", since wheels turn below a cart and in Germanic, Italic and Celtic, necks turn the heads around), "greeva", "kanth", "garebaan", "kalaar" (a loan from "collar" and means shirtneck, not the neck on the body), "tontee", "gale milana", "sthal-damaroomadhy", "kanth". Only "collar" / "kalaar" is a cognate of "hals", and that from Latin, not from indigenous Indic material.

The question is not about learning Dutch, it's about learning ABOUT proofs or lack of such for Proto-Indo-European.

Second part of video is about different branches, much less to argue about, sometimes just asking for curiosity. Or reinforcing my points on previous.

12:26 Are you bringing up the Mitanni or are you saying Vedic is older than Mycenaean?

[later] Ah, Mitanni!

Do they have descriptions of riding?

Indrajit Gupta

@Hans-Georg Lundahl What do you mean? Was that sarcastic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Indrajit Gupta It wasn't.

I only knew that Mycenaean Greek was older than anything in India written down for us, and that Mitanni had a language "Aryan" - but was not sure whether it was closest to Vedic or to Avestic.

So, my first reaction is "no" and then I think "ah, Mitanni" and after that I get Mitanni confirmed.

The horse breeding manual in Mitanni is from c. 1300 BC, I recall, but I only know of the chariot use of horses for sure, so I would want to know if it contained descriptions of riding as well.

15:37 Is Tsakonian really a true and pure descendant of Spartan / Laconian? Or are there areal features with Modern Greek that could not be predicted from ancient Laconic?

24:42 And in some of the Eastern Uniate rites of Roman Catholicism, mainly Ukrainean pronunciation.

25:54 My professor in Greek, knowledgeable in IE studies and playing a "Devil's advocate" about PIE (or a Trubetskoy advocate, which is less diabolic to me) used to say : for any gloss that is preserved BOTH in Lithuanian AND in Old Greek, you can know exactly how it looked in PIE.

This is obviously not the case for all glosses in either of these and those that do exist in both do not necessarily exist in all other ones.

28:42 Phrygian also has a Grimm's law approximation ... how likely or unlikely is it purely linguistically that Germanic is modern Phrygian?

The gloss "phrug" in Greek would be "brug" in Phrygian ... we see a word known from Swedish, Danish and German.

What is "phrygian" was an approximate perceived endonym meaning "usual" before being exonym?

33:33 My exact reason (or one of them) to doubt the existence of PIE and favour Trubetskoy : PIE is supposed to be as old as Noah's Flood, while arguably after Babel (ending 101, 401 or 529 after the Flood, depending on text version) Magog, Madai, Iavan, Lud, Gomer would have led tribes speaking different languages, and except possibly Magog, all of them IE ones (Gomer = Anatolian and Celtic, perhaps even Italy-Celtic, perhaps even extending to Germanic).

Hence my Trubetskoy hunch, they were more unlike each other right after Babel than they became in the time of Abraham - which btw is carbon dated c. 5000 years ago, Genesis 14 = 1935 BC (Abraham between 75 and 86, so probably 80) = carbon dated 3500 BC.

BD

@user-kb5py3hm2e

Absolutely unlikely. Sound changes are not unique to only one language.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@user-kb5py3hm2e I'm sorry, but over languages, the multiple sound changes like Grimm's law are actually unlikely.

The to me known instances are:

• Germanic
• Hungarian (but not Finnic)
• Phrygian.

Do you have some example from indigenous languages of Africa or from America or Oceania?

Because, if not, it would be likelier there is at least contact between the three groups. The Hungarian part of it can be fixed if Rhaetic and Etruscan is considered as an old version of Hungarian.

Tibees promotes Maria Popova's ill argued hagiography of Kepler : his Somnium is cited

A shocking story that shows how closed-minded people can be
1st of Dec. 2021 | Tibees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IllgR6kOieI

1:02 Key concept - can be explained, not need be explained.

Btw, his theory on celestial mechanics was not one of two, as you propose, but one of four, you can look them up in Riccioli's Almagestum Novum, book 9, section 2, chapter 1.

His enumeration of options is not chronological.

1) moved by proper form, namely like fire is moved up or earth is moved down ... Kepler is mentioned here
2) moved by proper form, namely like living beings by souls
3) moved directedly by God
4) moved by angels, assigned this task by God.

He considers the matter cannot in and of itself be proven (you can't observe it like you can observe how flames spread by setting other things afire) but that option four has the best theological arguments and also has most support in diverse theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas being one of them, but Coimbra Jesuits, Suarez, Nicolas of Cusa not lacking ....)

1:45 Kepler considered the evidence pointed to Heliocentrism ... but so far not saying what that evidence is ...

2:35 In 1616, however, Galileo was not tried, only his book was.

And saying that heliocentrism being punishable by death was decided then, I'd like to see a reference.

W a i t ... is the reference Maria Popova?

I look her up and she graduated in 2003 in Sofia, Bulgaria ... in other words, a post-Communist country where Galileo trial had figured heavily in anti-Christian propaganda up to at least 6 years after she was born ...

6:32 376,625 km a bit further off than perigee ....

7:06 "As for the inhabitants of the moon, they believe that the Earth rotates around the Moon"

A standard argument against the prima facie view and was still used by Euler writing to a Prussian princess. But the "inhabitants of the moon" who are not even as its angel an explanation for its motion around the zodiac in about a lunar month, or of mars, venus, jupiter or whatever, are very undocumented.

Saying "they believe we rotate around them, and how silly is that?" is an appeal to the unknown and presumably unreal.

9:23 Copernicus was not in fact presenting all that much scientific fact.

His argument was mainly "epicycles are ugly and difficult to describe, hence chaotic and unworthy of God's hand in creating things"

10:00 It can be added here, Kepler lived in a Protestant country where he could not get burned for heresy. He was in Prague when this was written, exiled from Graz after refusing a Catholic conversion.

Actually, the city his mother went to was more purely Protestant, and that's where she got in trouble for an accusation of witchcraft.

13:21 Riccioli took this as Kepler's mechanistic cause being magnetism...

13:35 Inertia had been understood since Buridan studied impetus.

14:28 "the first major challenge to our self-importance" ... more like, to our normal certitudes.

I begin to feel Maria Popova has a very religious view on all of this matter and that she's basically making heliocentrism (and "other challenges to our self-importance") a kind of "salvation issue" in a secularised, non-Christian, non-Biblical, but still very far from profane or simple urgency sense. She has a view with religious atheism or scientism.

I am not sure if someone recommended this video to me.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I am not sure if someone recommended this video to me. · New blog on the kid: As to Working When Before a Computer - Last Seven Days · The Two Weeks Before That?

I do feel very sure some would have liked to. Here it is.

If you feel there is something to it, I dare you to take a debate with me on it.

How to be miserable for the rest of your life
1st Apr. 2021 | Better Ideas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9qsxhhNUoU

Oh, by the way, I meant like debating me over the internet, where your words can be documented with my replies .... this is not an invitation to distract from a morning rest or a begging session or an internet session or a meal to give me a piece of your mind face to face.

Matthew 6:7 and the Rosary

Does Jesus DISLIKE Repetitive Prayers, Like the Rosary? w/ Jimmy Akin
17th Jan. 2022 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC0sx25rIyE

[What does the reference to pagan prayers mean?]

For context what pagan prayers that "stammer" are like, take a look at one from the sixteenth year of Tiberius, end of Velleius Paterculus' Roman History, book II. He ends it with a prayer and he really can't make up his mind which divinity to adress and what exact words to use. B U T there are no verbatim repetitions in it.

It's not particularly long either. Wordy, yes, long, no. The Vulgate has "many words" ...

But yes, explanations like to potentially unfriendly strangers, that is there in Velleius' prayer to the gods.

YAJUN YUAN

Timestamp 0:19 "The Greek term is not properly translated vain repetitions."
I agree with Jimmy, Matthew 6:7 when properly translated talks about lengthy prayer not repetition (Timestamp 0:46), which is why Jesus when he gives an example on how to prayer gives a short but sweet 58 word example.
Note: no Catholic translation uses the word repetition in Matthew 6:7

However, Sirach 7:14 explicitly talks against repetition in prayer!
et non iteres verbum in oratione tua (Vulgate)
"Be not full of words in a multitude of ancients, and repeat not the word in thy prayer." (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
"Do not babble in the assembly of the elders or repeat the words of your prayer." (New American Bible (Revised Edition))
"Do not babble on in the assembly of the elders, and in your prayers do not repeat yourself" (New Catholic Bible)
"Do not thou be a jangler [or full of words] in the multitude of priests; and rehearse thou not a word in thy prayer." (Wycliffe)

I wonder how Catholics will try to escape the plain meaning of this verse? since they have to accept the apocrypha

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN It does not say "repeat not a prayer" but "repeat not the word in thy prayer, more especially "deuteroo" means specifically doubling - not tripling.

And since all repeated prayers are repeated to make a minimum of three occurrences, and since it's only angels (and the Church citing them) that repeat a single word (holy said three times, not just twice), we are fair on this one.

By the way, I disagree about "lengthy" it is about wordy. The point being if a pagan had written Our Father, it could have omitted petitions about forgiveness and protection from temptation and still been twice as long as the actual Lord's Prayer from all explanations given to back up the requests, but it would not have been as lengthy as repeating Our Father ten times.

I think both injunctions are about speaking with confidence, like no "as ... ? ... as we forgive" and so on.

Lengthy per se and repetition of whole prayers are not mentioned.

The Haydock comment seems to mean one should not de facto repeat by synonyms "as we forgive and pardon" and so on ...

YAJUN YUAN

@Hans-Georg Lundahl 'It does not say "repeat not a prayer" but "repeat not the word in thy prayer"'
Sure, I'm not saying that you cannot use the same prayers again e.g. you could pray the Lord's prayer once per day. But I'm saying in a single prayer do not repeat yourself, in the Rosary I count 6x, 6x, 53x repetitions.

Not sure what you mean by angels, but I don't think Revelation 4:8 is a prayer because one the text doesn't use the word prayer and second there is no petition or intercession. I consider it an act of praise or worship.

Sirach 7:14 says
1) Don't be full of words (noli verbosus esse) - not against Rosary
2) Don't repeat (or rehearse) the sentences (non iteres verbum) - specifically against the Rosary

Matthew 6:7 says
1) Don't use many words (nolite multum loqui) - against a 2976 word prayer (which could include the Rosary)

Note: the context of Sirach is in an assembly (i.e. church equivalent), not a pagan one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN Revelation 4:8 is a prayer because it is an act of praise and worship. Exactly as the rosary.

The context of Sirach is not filibustering the godfearing assembly and not being wordy in prayers of petition.

While the rosary includes petitions, it is foremost an act of worship, which is the highest form of prayer. In Our Lord's prayer it corresponds to the petition "hallowed be thy name".

YAJUN YUAN

@Hans-Georg Lundahl @Hans-Georg Lundahl "is a prayer because it is an act of praise and worship" you have a definition that any act is a prayer, where do you get this definition from?
prayer (προσευχή) = exchange of wishes
worship (σέβομαι) = reverence, adore, to hold someone in high respect

"not being wordy in prayers of petition"
So you telling me, non iteres verbum is identical in meaining to nolite multum loqui?

"it corresponds to the petition "hallowed be thy name"
Leaving the argument against repetition aside why do you say the rosary instead of the divine mercy chaplet? It seems to me that it a form of hypo-Latria towards Mary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN hyper-dulia is a better word than hypo-latria.

Any dulia is hypo in relation to latria, but it is also sth other, lacking parts of latria.

@YAJUN YUAN "So you telling me, non iteres verbum is identical in meaining to nolite multum loqui?"

The Haydock comment seems to take it so.

And that this applies to petitionary prayer.

YAJUN YUAN

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The reason I use hypo-latria is because Catholics put here in class of her own (exclusive worth). God is also in a class of his own, but she is less than God, so she is hypo-latria.
Hyper-dulia would be applicable if there were others who were in the same category.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN Hyper-dulia is a class of Her own given that others in the same class are only offered dulia.

There is a litany to St. Joseph.

Angela Goemans-Leith

@YAJUN YUAN Hypo-latria and hyper-dulia aside...

"I'm saying in a single prayer do not repeat yourself, in the Rosary I count 6x, 6x, 53x repetitions."

The Rosary is not one single prayer. It is just one single sitting. There is the Nicene Creed, the Our Father, the Hail Mary (repeated 10 times and then followed by 3 other prayers), the Glory Be, the O My Jesus, and the Hail Holy Queen. In none of these prayers are we just constantly repeating words. So if you're "not saying that you cannot use the same prayers again" then that should apply to the Rosary as well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YAJUN YUAN All of the saints are in the same category.

But She is foremost of them. Dulia applies to all saints and hyper-dulia to Her.

The litanies, we have two litanies of latria, to the Name and Sacred Heart of Jesus. One of hyper-dulia, the Loreto litany to Her. Two of dulia, namely the litanies to All Saints and to St. Joseph.

[Can one ignore the words in favour of the mysteries, or should one, even?]

3:18 It is not a stupid goal.

The words of the prayer are the drum beat, the meditations on the mysteries the melody.

Btw, there is a way to combine it, second method of St. Grignon de Montfort, adding a relative clause after the name Jesus, and it has to do with the mystery.

Joyful : "whom thou oh virgin ..."
Sorrowful : "who for us sinners ..."
Glorious : "who ..."

Sam Aronow Thought Judaism Survived the Fifth Jewish Rising ...

The Hebrew Calendar (235-362)
21st Aug. 2020 | Sam Aronow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irs7Q40NumM

Here are my replies to him:

5:17 No basis in the Old Testament?

// The Martyrdom of Isaiah
The first five chapters of this work are a Jewish expansion of 2 Kings, detailing the martyrdom of Isaiah. Chapters 6-11 are a Christian work which detail Isaiah’s ascension through the seven heavens. This section is akin to the apocalyptic literature of Enoch in that Isaiah’s soul is ushered through various stages of heaven. Each section is a composite of various sources. This complicates the dating of the book. The Jewish section was likely written in Hebrew and translated into Greek. Hebrews 11 appears to refer to the martyrdom of Isaiah (“some were sawn asunder”) or the same tradition that Isaiah the prophet was martyred by being sawn in half. This would imply a date prior to the late first century. //

5:46 I think you miss that Constantine only wrote this to the Council of Nicaea after they had decided on the matter.

And before you rush off to call Jews innocent of persecuting Christians, how about checking what some of the Roman Emperors persecuting Christians prior to Constantine had in common with Jews - or Julian the Apostate, for that matter.

6:07 "Dissuading or preventing Jewish converts to Christianity would be burned at the stake" -?

How about a source for this one ...? Ideally fourth century Roman law?

6:33 It may be added, Constantius II being an Arian, in conflict with the Council of Nicaea, actually persecuted Nicene Christians (like St. Athanasius) as much as Pagans, and both way more than Jews.

Like, Christian Churches were wholesale handed over to Arians, and the destructions of Pagan temples weren't just authorised for some of them, but for all of them.

11:28 Congratulations, you have just shown, Judaism is not the Mosaic religion.

Yom Kippur on Friday - is it so bad eating cold meals after fasting?
Yom Kippur on Sunday - dito, with cold meals Sunday evening?

And surviving without a central authority was also not what God had told Moses to do for centuries (Babylonian captivity was way shorter than your tour de force).

Conclusion : if the religion of Moses was the true one, Messiah must have come and replaced it somehow ... I take it you are not considering Hillel the Younger as the Messiah, right?

There is one very obvious candidate, you know ...

12:14 I think you just showed a somewhat distasteful enthusiasm for the Apostate ...

After video - thank you anyway for showing that it is possible that "the Jews" and Our Lord (who had come down from Galilee, through Samaria arguably) may have celebrated the Seder on two different consecutive days - like if He sighted the first visibility of the Nisan new moon late an evening in Galilee before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem sighted it somewhat earlier next evening.

Leo Yohansen is Back

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bart answered ... · Continuing with Leo Yohansen · With Leo Yohensen, Snappy Version · Leo Yohansen is Back · somewhere else : Apostles and St. Irenaeus · Where is the First Person if Moses and some Disciples wrote Torah and Gospels? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Also under the video with GMS and Leo Yohansen

Leo Yohansen

1. "As I recall, zealots were a radical wing of essenes. If I'm wrong, I can look it up."

Yes, you're wrong. Look it up.

"Not a real problem. They can fix the whole picture together later."

They can't fix what was incapable of having been memorized in the first place.

"No one says anyone has memorised everything."

Either your imagined scenario of a group memorizing things works or it doesn't.

"If you refer to Mark 10 on marriage, I suppose Our Lord said this more than once as He was questioned more than once, forget where the parallel was. If it was Matthew, as I think it was, and it was there that the further words "unless it be for fornication" .... it is explainable as Matthew, a Levite, was better at memorising than Peter, a fisherman.

If you refer to Sermon on the Mount, Matthew and Luke, these were two sermons, the Matthean to the disciples, the Lucan to the crowd below."

Your claim has been that a group of men had memorized what was written down. So, talking about individual memories would be irrelavent to your claim.

"Not sure I recall an example. If you mean cleansing of the temple, I think this occurred twice, once when Our Lord started and once more a few days before the Crucifixion."

I'm talking about many events.

A. Finding Disciples
B. The Capernaum Healings
C. The Leper
D. Fasting and the Sabbath
E. The Twelve Appointed
F. A House Divided
G. Mother and Brothers
H. The Sower
I. The Mustard Seed
J. The Stormy Sea
K. Legion
L. The Daughter of Darius (sic - Jairus)
M. Home Town Rejection
N. The Twelve Sent Out
O. The Feeding of the Five Thousand
P. The Entry Into Jerusalem
Q. The Cleansing of the Temple
R. The Anointing for Burial

The above is the order of events as presented in Mark. For the other accounts, the orders are

Matthew
A
C
B
J
K
Da
L
Na
E
Nb
Db
F
G
H
I
M
O
P
Q
R

Luke
M
B
A
C
D
E
R
H
G
J
K
L
N
O
F
I
P
Q

John
A
Q
O
R
P

"No author would have wanted to put all the speeches into a single papyrus scroll, however many they knew. Remember, codex format came into fashion after this."

If it had been a group effort as you had imagined, then yes, they would have wanted to put everything in a single work. The Torah was written in 5 scrolls so no one was ever limited in presenting everything in a single scroll.

"To further imagine what was being taught behind the scenes in contrast to what is actually portrayed, that is, disciples listening to speeches, not memorizing parts of speeches, only testifies to the imaginary nature of it all. Imagination is required to attempt to justify imaginary accounts."

Imagination is required to justify lots of real accounts too.

With what I portrayed, the actual text in the Bible would give the lesson without pulling out extras for how the memorisation was being effected, as that would have been taken for granted.

What you portrayed simply didn't work and therefore wasn't credible for what is portrayed by the texts.

2. a) "As if there were only he and the "persons in the fictional account" and none between them we know names of."

As if the names we know leading up to Polycarp and Ignatius aren't as fictional as well.

"John wrote the Gospel c. ten years after the Apocalypse. AD 100 as opposed to AD 90. He was most probably a Cohen and one of the 72, not a fisherman and one of the 12."

None of that is true. The writers of the two works aren't even the same person much less written at the presented times.

"Here are bishops of Antioch, for you : Peter I ( c. 37/47– c. 53/54), Evodius ( c. 53/54– c. 68/83), Ignatius ( c. 68– c. 107 or c. 83–115). First successor : Evodius. Second successor : Ignatius. QED.

You do not get to state that a Church tradition was "started" year so and so just because it is the earliest recording you know of."

Yes, I do. I get to say it because for literally hundreds of years no one had known of it combined with the fact that the tradition isn't even credible.

2. b) "Exactly how many contemporary texts are there referring to them at all and in situations of conversation?"

Contemporary texts make references to all kinds of people with titles, none of them being 'Rabbi' or 'Rabban'.

"Hoshianna Ben David" would be equivalent to "thou art ha-Meshiakh"

No one have been publicly calling him that either.

3. "Your failure to understand a technique of memorisation doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Your failure to imagine something credible does mean that it doesn't exist.

4. a) "Or one below the other."

Look up the verses to the order of events in the texts as presented above.

"You could refer me to such a comparison too - BUT to an example that struck you as important."

Or you could actually look up the parallel synoptic accounts and see for yourself. As an example, you could look up Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 and see how Luke 21:12-17 follows Mark 13:9-13 but how Matthew 24:9-13 abbreviates the matter. Then you can see how Matthew 24:15-22 follows Mark 13:14-20 but how Luke 21:20-24 differs with them. These differences are clearly not the product of some imagined group effort to memorize speeches but are the product of copying a text and making individual changes.

"Like SVO and SVO? Like same adjective to O? How much could be due to these being very natural word choices, and that's why I wanted a striking example from you."

And that's why you need to look it up and see for yourself. Look up the orders of events presented above.

4. b) "In a situation (as given by Clement the Stromatist) where St. Peter is reading from two texts side by side, Matthew and Luke, and adding some of his own, this would obviously be because St. Mark was noting the words of St. Peter. Believing he was editing a Gospel."

No, there was no such situation so there's nothing obvious about it.

"St. Peter skipped some."

No, 600 of Mark's 666 verses are reproduced in Matthew. 300 are reproduced in Luke. There would have been no sense in anyone reproducing the texts only to greatly abbreviate Matthew or Luke to create a much shorter account.

"Or Markan Gospel as the ultimate outlet, as St. Mark heard St. Peter reading Matthew and Luke."
Again, no such situation. In fact, it is absurd to believe that Peter would need to be informed by a text of Matthew pertaining to events that Matthew had not been a part of. In Mark 9:7, Peter, John, and James, are to have been with Jesus and heard a voice that said "This is my beloved son, hear him." Neither Matthew nor anyone else had been there. In the Matthew 17:5 account, the voice says "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, hear him." Again, neither Matthew nor anyone else had been there so if the Mark account had been produced from Peter's memory, one would expect Peter to have known what he had heard rather than Matthew who hadn't been there to have heard anything. So, in 2Peter 1:17 when the voice is recalled as having said "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." it is absurd to believe that Peter had to recall the writing of someone who hadn't been there instead of his own memory supposedly recorded in Mark. This shows that these texts are not the product of the individuals claimed from tradition. The fact that ALL of them are written in the third person testifies to the fact that none of them had been written by any eye-witnesses.

4. c) "In other words, St. Papias is scrupulous enough to give us the chain of evidence. And this St. John the Gospeller arguably one of the 72 and a Cohen."

In other words, Papias provides no chain of evidence as he only provides what others have said about anonymous texts and John had not been known to have been a cohen. If anyone would have been a cohen, it most likely would have been Cephas but nothing is known of either of them having been so. And the reference to Matthew obviously isn't a reference to the received text called Matthew as that text is not a collection of logia. It's also obvious to anyone who's read Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews that they weren't written by the same person.

Hans Georg Lundahl

1 "Yes, you're wrong. Look it up."

In case you missed, I did. I admitted my error.

"They can't fix what was incapable of having been memorized in the first place."

It was, as already specified, not incapable of having been memorised.

If there are twentyfour sentences to memorise, each has to memorise two of them, and as the order between the disciples is fixed, the one who memorised alpha and nun (Peter) is followed, twice, at the right moments, by the one memorising beta and xi (Andrew) and so on.

Your problem with this is attending to one sentence to memorise and hearing other sentences at the same time. In principle, this is no different from the recorded practise of two sthenographers writing down a sentence up to when it's no longer spoken while trusting the colleague will pick up what they are hearing. It is also not very different from singing one tune while hearing people who sing three other tunes (four part counterpoint).

"Either your imagined scenario of a group memorizing things works or it doesn't."

It works up to when they can get an overview of the thing said. After that, different people would have been differently well versed in each of the speeches.

"Your claim has been that a group of men had memorized what was written down. So, talking about individual memories would be irrelavent to your claim."

Your objection is confusing short term memory - piecing a speech together on stepping aside - and long term memory.

"I'm talking about many events."

The internal order of which was obviously not memorised in above method. I mentioned it as applying to speeches, one by one, not as applying to the whole sequence of events over 3 and a half years.

Q - cleansing of the temple. There were two of them. St. John records the one which the Priests could consider as "immaturity" and the synoptics the one which they could consider as a "repeat offense".
M, hometown rejection, also more than one, not necessarily restricted to only two.
O - you forget that there were two feedings of multitudes, 5000 and 4000. Matthew 15 and Mark 8 deal with the 4000. Matthew 14, Mark 6, Luke 9 and John 6 deal with the 5000.

J and K always come in that order - when they come at all.

C the leper comes as part of B the Capharnaum healings, which had started before A the finding of disciples.

"If it had been a group effort as you had imagined, then yes, they would have wanted to put everything in a single work. The Torah was written in 5 scrolls so no one was ever limited in presenting everything in a single scroll."

I did not say any single Gospel was a group effort. I said the speeches in them were - at short term.

The Torah is five different books, not a continuous work just subdivided for convenience. Genesis and Exodus are both c. twice the length of a Gospel, Numbers and Deuteronomy one and a half the length of a Gospel, and Leviticus matches the length of a Gospel. Taking, as I do, chapter numbers as useful indicators of length.

"What you portrayed simply didn't work and therefore wasn't credible for what is portrayed by the texts."

To get that skewed result, you'd need to be very ignorant on how teaching is done in oral cultures or even in places where schoolbooks are scarce.

Hans Georg Lundahl

2a) "As if the names we know leading up to Polycarp and Ignatius aren't as fictional as well."

Well, where do you draw the line? How do you propose the transition from a fictional church to a factual church happened? Or alternatively, supposing the factual church started c. 100, how do you propose it entirely forgot its real history and substituted a fictional one for it?

"None of that is true. The writers of the two works aren't even the same person much less written at the presented times."

I'm sorry, you are wrong. And I am very sorry, you are addicted to a wrong principle, likely to make you wrong in the future as well. That one being ignoring Church tradition (about as sensible as ignoring the US tradition about the order of the presidents) in favour of reconstruction. A flight of fancy that can take any liberties, when it doesn't serve the handed down informations, but serves to pretendedly invalidate them.

2b) "Contemporary texts"

I note you shirk the question how many, and obviously also which ones they were.

"make references to all kinds of people with titles, none of them being 'Rabbi' or 'Rabban'."

And what exact type of references are we talking about? Like do they involve conversations?

"No one have been publicly calling him that either."

In Pharisaic contempt of the people, as long as the crowd shouting that so everyone could see and hear weren't backed up by the P¨arisees or Priests, that was not "official" to you ... unless you simply meant to deny the historicity, in which case it falls under the heading of preferring reconstruction over tradition.

Hans Georg Lundahl

3 "Your failure to imagine something credible does mean that it doesn't exist."

Your "credible" just shows your inexperience with how information is handled outside where you were learning.

Hans Georg Lundahl

4a) Part of what you deal with is a strawman, as it would apply to a group effort to memorise not just single speeches and confrontations, but actual order of all events, which I did not say. B U T you gave, thank you very much, an actual example.

"Or you could actually look up the parallel synoptic accounts and see for yourself. As an example, you could look up Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 and see how Luke 21:12-17 follows Mark 13:9-13 but how Matthew 24:9-13 abbreviates the matter. Then you can see how Matthew 24:15-22 follows Mark 13:14-20 but how Luke 21:20-24 differs with them. These differences are clearly not the product of some imagined group effort to memorize speeches but are the product of copying a text and making individual changes."

Mark 13:9-13 = Luke 21:12-17?
Mark 13:14-20 = Matthew 24:15-22

Peter comparing Matthew and Luke read Luke 21:12 - 17 and Mark noted down 13:9-13, then he read Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark noted 13:14-20.

[9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake. [10] And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another. [11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. [12] And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. [13] But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

[9] But look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them. [10] And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached. [11] And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost. [12] And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death. [13] And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.

[12] But before all these things, they will lay their hands upon you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, dragging you before kings and governors, for my name's sake. [13] And it shall happen unto you for a testimony. [14] Lay it up therefore into your hearts, not to meditate before how you shall answer: [15] For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay. [16] And you shall be betrayed by your parents and brethren, and kinsmen and friends; and some of you they will put to death. [17] And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake.

I will take one piece of common text.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake.
For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them.
... they will lay their hands upon you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and into prisons, dragging you before kings and governors, for my name's sake.

It does not strike me as copying and changing, it strikes me as memorising with different wording - Matthew, as you say, giving a shorter version.

4b) "No, there was no such situation so there's nothing obvious about it."

According to Clement the Stromatist, of Alexandria, the city where St. Mark was the first bishop, there definitely was.

"No, 600 of Mark's 666 verses are reproduced in Matthew. 300 are reproduced in Luke."

There are 677 verses in Mark. And it is entirely possible that both sets were reproduced into Mark and not from it.

"There would have been no sense in anyone reproducing the texts only to greatly abbreviate Matthew or Luke to create a much shorter account."

If you deliberately ignore the scenario provided by Church tradition from Alexandria : St. Peter was not trying to make a new and shorter account, he was skimming through both Matthew (which he already knew) and Luke (which was presented to him for approval) and showing the agreement by reading from both and changing them at turns. And St. Mark, habitual as St. Peter's secretary, taking notes as if hearing St. Peter dictate a Gospel of his own.

"Again, no such situation."

Again, if you a priori deny situations presented by tradition.

"In fact, it is absurd to believe that Peter would need to be informed by a text of Matthew pertaining to events that Matthew had not been a part of."

Complete strawman. St. Peter did not need information, he already knew Matthew agreed with his memories and he was checking by Matthew and his memories that Luke was a good Gospel too.

"Neither Matthew nor anyone else had been there." In the Matthew 17:5 account, the voice says "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, hear him."

Difficulty disappears if Matthew had his information from Peter.

"So, in 2Peter 1:17 when the voice is recalled as having said "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." it is absurd to believe that Peter had to recall the writing of someone who hadn't been there instead of his own memory supposedly recorded in Mark."

In Douay Rheims, the verse reads:

For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

In other words, no discrepancy in lacking the final imperative.

"This shows that these texts are not the product of the individuals claimed from tradition."

Only by a shallow analysis that sets out to "prove" that by dishonesty.

"The fact that ALL of them are written in the third person testifies to the fact that none of them had been written by any eye-witnesses."

Yeah, anyone involved in events would naturally refer to himself in first person, always ... Moses and Caesar never existed .... duh!

Are your grades in mathematical subjects somewhat better than those in letters? Like, languages, philosophy, history?

Hans Georg Lundahl

4c) "In other words, Papias provides no chain of evidence as he only provides what others have said"

No, he provides what one fairly significant other than himself has informed him of. He says John and Aristion were disciples of Christ.

"about anonymous texts"

According to John's information to Papias, they were precisely not anonymous.

"and John had not been known to have been a cohen."

You are missing a reference from Asia minor (I think another early CF than Papias, about same time) where John is said to have worn the golden head band. See L'énigme du disciple que jésus aimait by Jean Colson. You are also missing the beloved disciple in his Gospel knew the chief priests. No one says Cephas did so.

"If anyone would have been a cohen, it most likely would have been Cephas but nothing is known of either of them having been so."

Very obviously, no one pretends Cephas had ever been a Cohen.

"And the reference to Matthew obviously isn't a reference to the received text called Matthew as that text is not a collection of logia."

It is a collection of logia set in the background setting of the story. You are imagining, every reference a text receives in ancient times (or our times!) absolutely has to be prosaically precise in the way a librarian's catalogue description is.

"It's also obvious to anyone who's read Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews that they weren't written by the same person."

Actually very few have read the Gospel according to the Hebrews, so the claim is moot. But it is also irrelevant. Matthew writing first in Hebrew does not mean his text equals "Gospel to the Hebrews". Or is claimed to equal it.

Jimmy Akin starts OK - till he gets started on the subject of Hell fire

Matt Fradd from Pints with Aquinas channel interviews Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers. I commented as I saw, c. first half third of it:

10,000 Objections to Catholicism ANSWERED w/ Jimmy Akin
30th Dec. 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi6YIqv0iSM

16:55 Does Jimmy Akin believe any real pope, persistently, after fraternal correction from inferiors, continued to believe a false thing?

John XXII famously went back on what he was attacked for, and the Sirmian formula was not on Liberius' own agenda, he stated he had been forced to sign it.

20:42 What first c. document?

I'm aware of Sub Tuum Praesidium in Coptic and Greek saying "thou only pure, thou only blessed" to Her (helped a lot at my return from Romanian Orthodoxy), but I thought it was second c.?

26:42 See the parallel between Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:42.

Blessed among women, as already said by the angel, means She was victorious over one main enemy of Israel. Similar words (but with some restrictions) had been said about Jael and Judith after they killed Sisera and Holophernes.

But when St. Elisabeth added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" she made unambiguously clear which enemy of Israel, and that one was not flesh or blood, but the old serpent. And as we know the old serpent is victorious by sin, his defeaters need to be victorious by sinlessness. And note, "ponam inimicitias" is clearly about "mulierem" and add to this her victory, means She has to be sinless.

27:27 Note very well, I count Mary and Jesus not as typological, but as literally promised fulfilment of Genesis 3:15.

There is no more direct one. Hence, it can be used for theological proof.

28:28 And the woman of Apocalypse 12?

And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

The only part that seems awry with applying it to the Blessed Virgin (apart from Challoner saying it's about the Church) is, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. (V. 2)

The virgin birth was a miracle sparing Her a painful delivery. But the question is, how long did the normal process last, and when did the miracle take over?

However, the Dormition and the empty tomb opened by St. Thomas is Church history.

And obviously, if OT scribes could make Church history accurate in Paralipomena, NT scribes like St. Andrew of Crete can make Church history accurate now too.

34:34 Quibble. Kierkegaard doesn't finish in "-ahrd" but in "awrd" since Danish aa = Swedish å = were pronounced "ah" c. 1300 maybe up to 1400, but have been pronounced "oa" / "aw" for all of the Modern Era. In Old Icelandic, the cognate is spelled á and was pronounced "ah" but this is in Modern Icelandic "ow". Often - I think Swedish and Danish added some å / aa that aren't á in Icelandic.

35:55 I was received into what I now believe to be the Vatican II Sect, then believed to be the Catholic Church, in 1988.

Rejecting Fundamentalist Exegesis was certainly not a requirement in 1985 - 88 in the Diocese of Stockholm.

I would say, some degree of Fundamentalist exegesis actually is a requirement, not bc sola scriptura, not bc rejecting spiritual senses, but bc accepting literal sense as fully historical. And that a man who has grave issues on that one, like Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger expressed in 1992 and following years and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has expressed more recently, is in a position, similar to the one who accepts tons of Catholic doctrine, but not the divinity of Christ. In other words, they are wrong to present themselves as Catholic.

Sorry Akin, more or less goes for you too, even if you are a layman, as an apologist, you have a somewhat approaching episcopal duty to be aware of all of the faith. Including, the Flood actually happened. Including, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are sufficiently complete to qualify as genealogies - which brings Abraham and cities in Mesopotamia and Pharaonic Egypt into with 2000 to 3000 years (depending on the text version) from Adam and Eve, these being the literal first couple.

Troll Patrol

Twilight zone. Dank weed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troll Patrol What the Hell are you talking about?

Respect for the Bible seems Ancient Aliens or substance abuse to you?

Troll Patrol

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Nope. I read regularly and have 40 or so bibles on my shelf. I oppose the heresy of "bible alone" - which is impossible. Why? The ego interprets, coloring and flavoring the passages at it desires. THAT is not truth. The bible is not an idol although many make it so. It is not God. It does not save. Jesus Christ saves. The book is about him, but tells 1% of what He did. Are you satisfied with 1%?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troll Patrol "I oppose the heresy of "bible alone" - which is impossible. Why? The ego interprets, coloring and flavoring the passages at it desires."

While "proprio ingenio innisus" is part of the paragraph in which Trent condemns what is sometimes referred to as Bible alone, it was not the main part of the condemnation, but what was the main part was going against the interpretation either:

a) that the Church hath held and holds (not just "holds right now" but it must be the same as previous centuries)
or
b) of the Church Fathers in their consensus.

@Troll Patrol "The book is about him, but tells 1% of what He did."

The Old Testament typoligically says more about what He did. Christ gave his apostles a complete OT exegesis after His Resurrection, which means that a Catholic, Patristic interpretation of the OT gives me much more of what He did than just the NT.

So does the liturgy, including icons, when accessible in Communion with actual Catholics. That doesn't seem to include you.

39:38 Taking the fire of hell as literal fire is not just Medieval St. Thomas Aquinas, it's also St. Augustine.

He once said:

* the fire is literal, the worms are a metaphor
* if you want to take one take on both, it's better to take worms as literal than fire as non-literal.

39:55 It could be added, the souls are not going to remain disembodied souls forever.

Hence, both Heaven and Hell being places, and Hell being full of physical fire, are quite as they should in regards with the Resurrection of the Body.

41:00 Whatever one may say about "real essence" - Hell is at least per accidens c. 6300 km below our feet. (Also known as 3 958.8 miles).

Tempier condemned 1277 ... VIII:5 (19). Quod anima separata nullo modo patitur ab igne. VIII:8 (108). Quod anima humana nullo modo est mobilis secundum locum, nec per se, nec per accidens; et si ponatur alicubi per substantiam suam, numquam mouebitur de ubi ad ubi. VIII:30 (214). Quod anima nunquam moueretur, nisi corpus moueretur, sicut graue uel leue numquam moueretur, nisi aer moueretur.

VIII:5 etc = English numbering, (19) etc. original numbers in Paris.

41:32 The problem of how fire can burn a non-physical soul is somewhat dwarfed by how it can burn resurrected bodies of the damned, and these still continue to exist as sentient bodies - but Moses and the Three Young Men saw kind of solutions to that one.

VI:32 (60). Quod ad hoc quod omnes effectus sint necessarii respectu cause prime, non sufficit quod ipsa causa prima no sit impedibilis, set exigitur quod cause medie non sint impedibiles. -Error, quia tunc deus non posset facere aliquem effectum necessarium sine causis posterioribus.

Preservation of bodies and tormenting of souls as if with sense organs feeling fire is not above the omnipotence of God.

41:43 - 42:00 "....but we also have to understand its limits - and we do that a little bit better today than some folks in the past. Because, in the past, you had a lot of people who weren't even literate, I mean, even in first century Palestine, ninety percent of the population was functionally illiterate."

In first C. Palestine, lots of people were illiterate in Hebrew. Someone presented himself as Kipha and not Kaiapha? (A bit as if a Swede had called himself Pelle instead of Petrus before a Lutheran clergyman) Oh, he can't Hebrew, conclusion as per Acts 4:13. This does not mean functional illiteracy as we would see it today, post-Classical and post-Sacred language era.

Then, these men had been trained by a Man who was and is God. (And as God the Son is Man, and Resurrected, Heaven needs to be an actual place right now, not just after Doomsday). On top of that, one of His disciples, a certain Matthew who took down the words now chapter 18 verse 8, was a Levite, despite misusing his learning for some time as a tax collector. He was highly literate.

But suppose it had been true. This would have meant, 90 % of His first hearers would have been very likely to misunderstand Him - making Him a liar.

But on top of that, your general type of argument seems to have been already condemned, either Syllabus of errors (Pius IX imitating the genre of Tempier) or the decree on Faith and Reason in the Council of the Vatican, 1869 to 70. We do not get to imagine what people in the past missed as to the sense of dogmas, just because, at least presumedly so, literacy rates are higher.

Troll Patrol

We learn from the bible that Christians do not need a bible. No Christian in the bible HAD a bible. Do we make ourselves superior?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troll Patrol The Christians in the New Testament certainly had the Old Testament.

And the Christians in the New Testament were certainly involved in the writing of the New Testament.

This means, the Church of the New Testament left us with a Bible as much as with a Church. Sure, the Bible was as yet nebulous as to canon, but each book that was later collected in the definitive canon of Trent was held canonic at least by some local Churches.

Therefore, we cannot imagine we know the meaning of the dogmas better than people did in the past. The meaning of some historic circumstance, certainly, like I hold it probable we can know the City of Babel was in Göbekli Tepe, or that the number of the beast is calculated by ASCII, but as to the meaning of the dogmas, no, we do not know them better.

That obviously includes the respect for the Bible.

Troll Patrol

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Where? In the Synagogues only! Shepherds were excluded! We revere the Hebrew Scriptures, but the "New Testament" is what saves us. NOT the book. You will not believe what the New Testament is. Look in the King James Version and see.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troll Patrol While the New Covenant is what saves us, and not the Book, belonging to the New Covenant involves not being a heretic. The Catholic Church forbids communicatio in sacris with Anglican heretics, and that's what much of the Novus Ordo sect has come to now.

You are factually wrong on pretending only the Synagogues had the Old Testament. The Holy Mass involves two main parts, Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Sacrifice. Now, the Liturgy of the Word definitely is based on the already existing synagogal service. Any shepherd who went to the Eucharist from Pentecost day on, would do so under a presbyter or bishop who did have an Old Testament.

Why do you refer me to King James Version? I do Douay Rheims, when I do English!

Brian Holdsworth on "Fact Checking"

Getting Fact-Checked
7th Jan. 2022 | Brian Holdsworth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RP5Cia-wqE

One comment by me:

7:35 c. I am reminded of a Catholic religious I know, who was very sure, we could by now be sure of heliocentrism being true, bc the instruments are so much better.

Hubble and all the rest are in fact providing with few exceptions either geocentric or near geocentric observations.

Heliocentrism comes from an argument, and improving the instruments doesn't change the arguments. Not per se, automatically, everytime, and arguably not this time.

If the argument is bad - as I think it is - heliocentrism remains a lousy argument, however many good (and immediately geocentric) instruments you bolster it with.

Starlight NOT the Light on Day One

Doug Sumowski

Podcaster and Author at Www.dtesh.com (2005–present)Dec 30

How was light created on the first day if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day?

Because the sun is not the ONLY source of light. Other suns/stars give off light too. And it may have taken till day 4 for the ozone layer to form so one on earth's surface could perceive the source of day 1 light as a result of plants in day 3 making the earth more oxygenated.

Also, many early Church fathers, like Augustine, didn't look at Genesis 1 as a literal scientific textbook of creation.

See, Augustine, “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis: An Unfinished Book”, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation Vol. 84. Translated by Roland J. Teske, SJ., ., (The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1991), 158, for more info.

Michael Jones

December 30

The Genesis myths are not written with any scientific logic in mind.

Doug Sumowski

December 30

That is exactly my point when I said: Also, many early Church fathers, like Augustine, didn't look at Genesis 1 as a literal scientific textbook of creation.

Comprehension… you need to read for comprehensoin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

December 31

St. Augustine didn’t know of any textbooks that were strictly literal only and gave no room for metaphors.

No one has said Genesis 1 is a science textbook, but St. Augustine and I both hold it is historically accurate. In his case with the proviso that three of the terms have a different meaning than expected (day, evening, morning).

Doug Sumowski

December 31

Did you read what I wrote or just assume that I meant something I never said?

No one who replied may have said that Genesis q was a textbook, but the person asking the original question, “how could light exist on day 1 when the sun didn't until day 4” obviously did think it was. So you didn't parse my answer correctly to know what I was referring to.

Also, I did point out that

#1 our sun is not the only source of light in the universe. So day 1 light source “could” be the other suns/stars of the universe.

#2 day 4 God said let two great luminaries be in the sky, which could mean that they are to be seen there since the same wording for dividing light from darkness from day one is poetically used. Or in other words, let the source of day 1 light be seen because the ozone layer is created by day 3 plant life. Not they were created on day 4.

Also, I would add because you may not be aware of other posts like this that I commented on, that the word day is not only used in the 24 hour sense in the creation accounts.

Gen 1:3 uses day to mean daytime, he called the light Day and the darkness Night…

Gen 2:4 in the day when God created …the entire creation account is a “day” here like when an old man says, “back in my day…” so the 24 hour motif is incorrect just understanding the contextual use.

Yes Augustine did think words like day, evening and morning were used in a different literary context here because of the style or genre of the text and those 2 alternatives for how the word day is used. You have no disagreement from me.

So stop assuming what I did not say and realize what I was answering before you say something.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

December 31

// the person asking the original question, “how could light exist on day 1 when the sun didn't until day 4” obviously did think it was. //

Not the least. He was presuming we take it as history and assuming (rightly) that history if actual has to get along according to the actual ultimate laws of the universe.

// So day 1 light source “could” be the other suns/stars of the universe. //

Not if they too were created on day IV.

And your #2, I had missed or I would have contradicted that one.

St. Augustine most definitely did not think light from a not yet visible sun or from stars created before it, was coming in the first three days. See book I.

// Yes Augustine did think words like day, evening and morning were used in a different literary context here because of the style or genre of the text and those 2 alternatives for how the word day is used. //

My point is, in book V and VI, he is arguing hos ONLY these three are to be taken other than the usual way. Not bc of genre, but because of the nature of the case - in his case, his assumption God obviously created everything in one single moment (and he dedicates parts of books V and VI to even this out with the otherwise literal interpretation of the account).

Doug Sumowski

December 31

No, read the question: How was light created on the first day if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day?

There is nothing about how we take history in THAT question.

It clearly asks how light was created without the sun…

Obviously if you cannot understand that you lack reading comprehension skills for you are changing: the question to mean something it was not asking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

Yes, and he accurately takes the historical sense of Genesis 1 as implying precisely THAT light was created without the sun as well as without other heavenly bodies.

My point is your solution is a cop-out that glosses over part of the history of Genesis 1.

Doug Sumowski

January 1

Genesis 1 is NOT history.

What I said was not a cop out <<< nice attack on my character since you couldn't refute WHAT I said.

My “solution” was merely pointing out that

#1 the sun is not the ONLY light source, so light could in some sense exist BEFORE day 4 four THAT reason along.

#2 the use of the word day in common English use, as is an old man saying, “back in my day” and Gen 1:3 “he called the light Day and the darkness he called Night” refutes the notion that Genesis 1 was a scientific or as you term it historical record of creation… because the use of the Hebrew word yom is not a fixed period of time, like 24 hours.

#3 early Church Fathers, like Augustine, didn't view it as historical or science. St. Augustine had his own “cop out” that disagrees with YOUR points. Should you ever read his City of God to find out.

And #4 the literary style of Genesis 1 is not historical but poetic. It is not science or factual in it's presentation. So YOUR premise is wrong as well as the original questioner.

So. Yeah. Nice chit chat

#1

"the sun is not the ONLY light source, so light could in some sense exist BEFORE day 4 four THAT reason along."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

#1 not if as you say the other light sources are such as Genesis 1 also describes as created on day IV

Doug Sumowski

January 1

#1 the text of Genesis does not say that “the stars also” were created or made on day 4, only that with the sun and the moon, the stars were also made.

Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

You assume that he made them on day 4 because that is when they were to “be lights in the vault of the sky” but since they were … “to separate the day from the night” (Genesis 1:14) and that was something God already did in Genesis 1:4 (God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness) … a “literal” reading would have to assume they existed on day 1, but were not seen.

Scientifically, light could have existed on earth with a cloud covering like the one on the planet Venus, prior to the ozone layer being the result of plant life on day 3, which would make Day 4 a parenthetical explanation of Day 1 when “God … separated the light from the darkness” (v4) that lights in the vault of the sky were “to separate light from darkness” in v14 and 18.

So no you are incorrectly assuming that the “sun and moon and stars” were the product of Day 4. Or even hinted at by the author in how he presented the events of Genesis 1.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 3

# 1 Is a really short one. Your Genesis 1:16 is a free translation. Douay Rheims has And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. I just verified that Hebrew also adds on “and the stars” - meaning, all the adverbials attached to the two great lights and all the verbal phrases apply equally to the stars. Both fix stars and planets, by the way.

Scientifically, light could have existed on earth with a cloud covering like the one on the planet Venus, prior to the ozone layer being the result of plant life on day 3, which would make Day 4 a parenthetical explanation of Day 1 when “God … separated the light from the darkness” (v4) that lights in the vault of the sky were “to separate light from darkness” in v14 and 18

Theologically, and philosophically, the solution given by St. Augustine in book I of De Genesi ad literam libri XII is flawless. It is that God provided light directly by divine fiat for the time up to the creation of the sun and it circled earth just as the sun would do later on.

#2

"the use of the word day in common English use, as is an old man saying, “back in my day” and Gen 1:3 “he called the light Day and the darkness he called Night” refutes the notion that Genesis 1 was a scientific or as you term it historical record of creation… because the use of the Hebrew word yom is not a fixed period of time, like 24 hours."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

#2 the most basic uses of yom are either “6 am to 6 pm” or “6 pm to next 6 pm” and context in Genesis 1 argues mostly “6 am to next 6 am (at Jerusalem meridian)

Doug Sumowski

January 1

#2 the usage of “yom” is not fixed to any definite period of time as you present. It is not only 12 hours or even 24 hours.

All you have to do is look at Genesis 2:4 to see that.

Genesis 2:4 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day (Hebrew word “yom”) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

Notice that the entire creation account, the second one to be precise, takes place in 1 day “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens”

Just like when an old man would say, “Back in MY DAY we walked uphill to school in the snow both ways.”

Day does not always mean a fixed period of time.

Daytime or day lasts longer in the Summer than it does in the winter. “Night” or nighttime is a period of time when it is dark outside. “Day” or daytime is merely the period of time when there is light outside.

Hence, Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.”

Can the sunshine be longer than 6 am to 6 pm? Or the moonshine, ONLY between 6 pm and 6 am?

We may assign those timeframes to such 12 hour periods, but the sun can rise at 5:45 and set at 7:45 depending on the time of the year and where you are on the earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 3

# 2 That either yom or day can be used in not strictly literal ways, in figures of speech is per se unproblematic. This doesn’t mean that this liberty could extend into days that are numbered and that have evenings or mornings. The solution offered but ultimately not insisted on as obliging in books V and VI is somewhat of a stretch. The six day account is a vision Moses had on Mt. Sinai. I’m fine with that. It was mediated by God’s angels. No problem. But he then says what happened was a one moment creation, the angels however were given to see it in six consecutive moments of perception - the days, and each moment of perception had two moments : the evening knowledge of what was created, when the angels saw the things in themselves, and then the morning knowledge when they looked up from the things and saw them in God. But this stretch actually does allow for a strict, if unusual, motivation why the days have numbers and evenings and mornings. Your general observation hasn’t.

#3

"early Church Fathers, like Augustine, didn't view it as historical or science. St. Augustine had his own “cop out” that disagrees with YOUR points. Should you ever read his City of God to find out."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

#3 St. Augustine very much viewed it as being historical, and before giving what you could consider his “cop-out” parallel to yours in books V and VI gave a good explanation leaving creation of other luminaries also to day IV - and after he gives his one moment creation, he gets back to saying that “six literal days is anyway good enough for beginners, it’s not subtle, but there is nothing really wrong with it”

Doug Sumowski

January 1

#3 Concerning St. Augustine

What Augustine means by “literal” is quite different from many modern uses of this term. To quote the great theologian Inigo Montoya: “you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

When Augustine described his later works on Genesis as “literal,” he intended to distinguish them from the allegorical approach of his earlier two-volume work on Genesis against the Manichees. These works had included such ideas as taking the days of Genesis 1 as 7 epochs of redemptive-historical history, and 7 stages of the Christian life.

With his turn to a “literal” commentary, Augustine wants to move from such allegorical uses of the text to its historical signification. Thus, in his Retractions, he qualifies the word “literal” in the title The Literal Commentary on Genesis as meaning “not the allegorical meanings of the text, but the proper assessment of what actually happened.” This adjustment of interpretative strategy did not entail a rejection of allegorical exegesis wholesale.

Hence, for Augustine, the term “literal” was concerned with historical referentiality, not with the particular literary genre or style in which that history is recounted. in his literal commentaries, one can find affirmations of the validity of allegorical interpretation, as well as repetitions of specific allegorical interpretations contained in his earlier works.

Thus, for Augustine, the term “literal” was concerned with historical referentiality, not with the particular literary genre or style in which that history is recounted. For instance, Augustine did not employ the term “literal” to exclude the possibility of language that is metaphorical, figurative, pictorial, dramatic, stylized, or poetical. This is consistent with how the word “literal” is often used today.”

Augustine’s literal commentaries display this kind of sensitivity. It is not uncommon, in fact, to find him pausing to worry whether an interpretation he has just advanced is not, in fact, an “altogether absurd and literal-minded, fleshly train of thought.” Though he is writing a “literal” commentary, Augustine appears worried to avoid “literalistic” interpretations.

So what specifically does Augustine think Genesis 1 “literally” means? In his finished literal commentary, Augustine emphasizes the ineffability of the creative act, and our difficulty in accessing its meaning: “it is indeed an arduous and extremely difficult task for us to get through to what the writer meant with these six days, however, concentrated our attention and lively our minds.”

Ultimately, Augustine affirms that ordinary 24-hours days “are not at all like [the days of Genesis 1], but very, very different.” In Augustine’s view, God creates all things simultaneously, and the 7-day construct in Genesis 1 is an accommodation in which “the Scriptural style comes down to the level of little ones and adjusts itself to their capacity.” Specifically, he affirms that the ordering of Genesis is not according to temporal sequence but rather the ordering of angelic knowledge. Thus, Augustine not only distinguished the days of Genesis 1 from ordinary 24-hour days, he also distinguished God’s initial creative act from his subsequent activity in creation:

When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.

Although Augustine was alert to broader philosophical issues in his context, his interpretation of Genesis 1 was ultimately rooted in certain exegetical concerns. For example, Augustine wrestled with the nature of the light in days 1-3 before the creation of the luminaries on day 4. Noting the phrase “let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” in Genesis 1:14, Augustine asked, “who can fail to see how problematic is their implication that times began on the fourth day, as though the preceding three days could have passed without time?” This problem greatly vexed Augustine. Ultimately, he identified the pre-solar light of day 1 with the spiritual/angelic creation. Angelology is a significant complicating feature of Augustine’s.

Augustine was alert to broader philosophical issues in his context, his interpretation of Genesis 1 was ultimately rooted in certain exegetical concerns. interpretation of Genesis 1—for instance, he correlated the morning/evening structure of Genesis 1, and the phrases “let there be” and “thus it was,” with different modes of angelic knowledge. He also assigned angels a significant role in the oversight of creation; at one point, for instance, he ponders whether the stars are “enspirited” by angels or merely “directed” by them.

Another textual difficulty that weighed on Augustine was the challenge of relating Genesis 2:4-6 to the creation week of Genesis, particularly the different usage of the word “day” in 2:4 and the apparent dischronology introduced in 2:5 (“when no shrub had yet appeared”). He devotes the entirety of Book 5 of his literal commentary to how Genesis 2:4-6 “with all their problems, confirm the opinion that creation was the work of one day.” Anticipating the charge that his notion of instantaneous creation draws too heavily on Sirach 18:1 in the Old Latin version (“he who remains for eternity created all things at once”), Augustine appeals to the textual proximity of these verses: “now we get evidence in support, not from another book of holy Scripture that God created all things simultaneously, but from next-door neighbor’s testimony on the page following this whole matter.” Augustine also drew attention to God’s rest on the Sabbath after the completion of creation in Genesis 2:1-3. Insisting that “God did not delight in some kind of time period of rest after hard toil,” he argued that this language must be taken analogically.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 3

# 3 With his turn to a “literal” commentary, Augustine wants to move from such allegorical uses of the text to its historical signification. Thus, in his Retractions, he qualifies the word “literal” in the title The Literal Commentary on Genesis as meaning “not the allegorical meanings of the text, but the proper assessment of what actually happened.” This adjustment of interpretative strategy did not entail a rejection of allegorical exegesis wholesale.

I have no problem with that.

Thus, for Augustine, the term “literal” was concerned with historical referentiality, not with the particular literary genre or style in which that history is recounted. For instance, Augustine did not employ the term “literal” to exclude the possibility of language that is metaphorical, figurative, pictorial, dramatic, stylized, or poetical. This is consistent with how the word “literal” is often used today.”

I have no real problem with that either. As long as you stick to what it means. It means, you don’t have to have a specific literary style to have history.

But this doesn’t mean a piece of the account can be taken out of it and treated as an extended metaphor and as therefore not having - what were you saying? - historical referentiality. This means Genesis 1 is history.

And #4

"the literary style of Genesis 1 is not historical but poetic. It is not science or factual in it's presentation. So YOUR premise is wrong as well as the original questioner."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 1

And #4 Hebraists disagree with you. Hebrew poetry and Hebrew narrative have different characteristics and the ones of Genesis 1 are those of narrative. NOT poetry.

Doug Sumowski

January 1

#4 I would love to know what “Hebraists disagree with you. Hebrew poetry and Hebrew narrative”.

That many scholars agree that the Genesis 1 text uses "high style" and those artistic devices common to Hebrew poetry--especially catachresis, anaphora, and parallelism. This is the reason it is considered not a historical work but a different literary genre. One more closely used in the ancient world is called a myth. Or as Jesus used a parable.

Genesis 1 is written in prose rather than in poetic lines--no meter. It does not use anaphora and parallelism the same way as that first section.

Genesis 1 can be compared with the Enuma Elish, as they have many similarities and it is determined by a great number of scholars that Genesis 1 is more of a Priestly account of creation to refute the Enuma Elish that the captives in Babylonian captivity would have known. (Reading the Old Testament by Lawrence Boadt, Paulist Press, page 93, copyright 2012, ISBN 978–1–61643–670–4)

Anything else?

Answered twice

# 4 and # 4 b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

January 3

# 4 That many scholars agree that the Genesis 1 text uses "high style" and those artistic devices common to Hebrew poetry--especially catachresis, anaphora, and parallelism.

Do you get the text divided into lines that are divided into half lines each having three full words? Do you get the parallelism usually between the two half lines and sometimes instead between two lines, or the second halfline extended in next line? No.

Therefore it is not poetry.

You can say that the opening words of the Ghettysburg adress are very high style, but nevertheless what Abraham Lincoln said of the US Constitution is a historical statement, not a poetic metaphor.

Anaphora means repetition. Precisely as with parallelism, this is between half lines or lines as previously stated.

Catachresis, I’d like to see an example given and commented on.

In other words, but also because the Church has always taken it so, Genesis 1:1 is history, either of the first 1 moment (St. Augustine’s view) or of the first 168 hours (the majority view) up to Genesis 2:4 where the Genesis 1 account ends.

# 4 b

“Genesis 1 can be compared with the Enuma Elish, as they have many similarities and it is determined by a great number of scholars that Genesis 1 is more of a Priestly account of creation to refute the Enuma Elish that the captives in Babylonian captivity would have known. (Reading the Old Testament by Lawrence Boadt, Paulist Press, page 93, copyright 2012, ISBN 978–1–61643–670–4)”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.I.2022

Obviously, this origin story for Genesis 1 is not the least shared by either St. Augustine, nor by Hebrew tradition. It is clearly not the tradition of the Catholic Church.

The idea was near condemned in 1905.

CIRCA CITATIONES IMPLICITAS IN S. SCRIPTURA CONTENTAS
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19050213_cit-implicitas_lt.html

Here is my comment on it:

Creation vs. Evolution : When Are Implicit Citations Licit?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/when-are-implicit-citations-licit.html

If you take that idea as your starting point for your “Augustinian” view of Genesis 1, it’s not Augustinian, it is modern sham science.

Enuma Elish is no proof and furnishes no proof that Genesis 1 was written in refutation of it, but if it was, why not by Moses, if Enuma Elish is old enough so he could have read it while Prince of Egypt?

Either way, Genesis 1 is God telling Moses (through angels, which is where St. Augustine finds plausability for his idea) how creation happened.

A Year Ago I Answered on Nephelim and Stonehenge

Here is a post published Epiphany 2021 : More on Babel (and generally from Flood to Abraham). If you go down to Q IX, you'll see this is what I start out as republishing, to make room for a debate under it.

Q IX

Did the Nephilim help create Stonehenge and its designs?
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Nephilim-help-create-Stonehenge-and-its-designs/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Jan 6, 2021

Not the pre-Flood nephelim, since Stonehenge, if my identification is correct, is after Babel (I take this as Göbekli Tepe).

Whether one should call the post-Flood giants nephelim or not and whether such were involved in Stonehenge, I don’t know, and I think Stonehenge is inferior to the previous Göbekli Tepe, so as to design, it was very well within human possibilities.

Jason Shearin

30.XII.2021

Nephilem never existed, neither did a global flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.XII.2021

yadda, yadda ….

The guy who posed the question was some kind of Christian, so am I.

An atheist obviously has to bump in …

Y E S …. I know this is your position, are you going to defend them with some kind of arguments?

The world’s first world history, written by Moses and put before his other four books, doesn’t agree with you, you know!

Jason Shearin

1.I.2022

Prove nephilem and a global flood. FYI the bible doesn't count as proof .ps I reccomend reporting me for religious persecution via the harassment tab, as I CONFESS I'm persecuting you and violating the 1st amendment

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.I.2022

I recommend myself using you as comedy gold.

“Prove nephilem and a global flood.”

Well, that would be a matter of the historical sources …

“FYI the bible doesn't count as proof”

And you just discounted the best historical source for the beginning of human history …

• a more detailed but less reliable one for pre-Flood events (in or around Henoch in the land of Nod, probably), Mahabharata, says there were giants on both sides, Bhima on Pandava side, forget the name on the Kaurava side
• Norse myth places giants before the Flood, but only gets wrong that men and earth itself were supposedly created after it (however, Odin could have been a Hebrew, making Norse myth an inaccurate retelling of Genesis on these matters, rather than an independent source for the events)
• Greek myths place giants and more specially Titans before the Flood (Prometheus and Epimetheus being relatives of Deucalion and Pyrrha and being born of the Titan Iapetus).

Jason Shearin

1.I.2022

Best historical source for the beginning of human history? Humans evolved… ps. Listing more myths doesn't count as evidence.

Yes this is more religious persecution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.I.2022

Yes, best historical source.

Neither Greeks nor Hindoos have any coherent explanation for language diversity after the Flood, and neither Greeks nor Hindoos have any continuous genealogy from the very first men to times that need to be assessed as historic. Also, neither of them even knows (mythological traditions) of Mesopotamia.

“Listing more myths doesn't count as evidence.”

When and why is a “myth” not history? This counts as persecution of halflearned ignorance!

“Humans evolved”

What historic source said “the last neanderthal” (or word with possibly equal meaning) “died yesterday, though some half breeds (including the closest mourners) are still around?”

In what historic source by Homo erectus soloensis did you find “the first Heidelbergian went unnoticed ten generations ago, but we must give those guys, they do have better ears?”

Jason Shearin

1.I.2022

There was no flood and humans evolved. Lmfao

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.I.2022

Laugh … you might need it.

Jason Shearin

2.I.2022

You're delusional and brainwashed, as well as uneducated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3.I.2022

• 1. ad hominem
• 2. ad hominem
• 3. ad hominem

Seems you need other things to a debate than just laughing. Too bad … laughing is actually healthy, unlike what you just produced.

Jason Shearin

3.I.2022

Present evidence for Adam and eve and a global global. The bible does not count.

All you've done is make claims. Present evidence

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3.I.2022

= “present evidence for history, but historic narrative does not count”

Jason Shearin

3.I.2022

If a global flood occured there will be geologic evidence as well as evidence for a global genetic bottleneck in every species.

Present it

Is it possible that you can't because it doesn't exist?

Prove I'm wrong. Present scientific evidence of Adam and eve and a global flood. Shut me up

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3.I.2022

"If a global flood occured there will be geologic evidence" - "Present it"

Austria. "Late Jurassic" or Flood of Noah buried an Austrian pterosaur at Ankerschlag. "Oligocene" or Flood of Noah buried a whale at Linz. "Middle to Late Miocene" or Flood of Noah buried another whale in the Austrian part of Leitha Limestone formation. "Late Middle Miocene" or Flood of Noah buried a whale, a seal, and some other critters in Nussdorf, outside Vienna.

Austria

Interesting enough, whether you go to Austria or to Karoo, you won't find two layers on top of each other with different classifications both containing fossils.

"as well as evidence for a global genetic bottleneck in every species." - "Is it possible that you can't because it doesn't exist?"

Actually, if you mean "every species" in a Linnaean way, it doesn't exist. You need to take it to every kind, more probably the level of family. Hedgehogs and gymnures do have fossil forms that no longer exist = a dying out, a culling out. Man too (though here we deal with genus homo only) : Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus soloensis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo naledi, Homo dmanesi, Homo Heidelbergensis (who could be a Denisovan), Homo Antecessor in Atapuerca (shares genes with Denisovans and morphology with Heidelbergians) and let's not forget Homo floresienesis ... man is more homogenous after the Flood than before.

"Prove I'm wrong. Present scientific evidence of Adam and eve and a global flood. Shut me up"

Generally, what you want for historic things (persons, objects, communities, events) is historic evidence and not primarily scientific one. However, the kind of scientific evidence you are looking for is not for that reason totally lacking.

Jason Shearin

3.I.2022

Show me peer reviewed scientific journals with this info about the proof of magic

I am not asking for claims. Why can you not comprehend this? Is my brainwashing accusation accurate?

Prove it isn't. Show us the peer reviewed scientific articles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3.I.2022

"Show me peer reviewed scientific journals with this info about the proof of magic"

You are not only presuming all proof, of historic truth, needs to be scientific rather historic. You are also presuming that all scientific proof needs to come from a peer reviewed scientific journal. AND on top of that that the summing up of scientific evidence into a conclusion can ALSO come only from a scientific journal that is peer reviewed. That sounds like quite a lot of brainwashing done to you - unless you are a poe, a troll, don't care two cents about the evidence but only for having a crack-down on creationists.

HOWEVER what I gave about Late Jurassic at Ankerschlag and so on in Austria is from my back up to a google site which in its turn uses palaeontology from what you would term normal palaeontological publications.

Austria - Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

You can ask Nobu Tamura if you want what scientific publications they were using, back up to 2016.

"I am not asking for claims."

You seem unable to comprehend when you get more than that - unless it comes in a very specific package, and that one on top of it defined so that you need not bother about peer reviewed Creation Science.

"Why can you not comprehend this? Is my brainwashing accusation accurate?"

It's very accurate if you point your finger to a mirror, not if you point it to me.

"Prove it isn't. Show us the peer reviewed scientific articles."

You are pushing the goal posts. No. I refuse.

Jason Shearin

3.I.2022

So you can't provide anything from a peer reviewed scientific article?

I understand. You're making a statement of faith. Thank you for clarifying for everyone. Enjoy your brainwashing

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3.I.2022

Thank you for clarifying for all of our upcoming readers that you are more than willing to twist what is being offered.

After this, I blocked and reported this barbarian enemy of Creationists.

With Leo Yohansen, Snappy Version

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bart answered ... · Continuing with Leo Yohansen · With Leo Yohensen, Snappy Version · Leo Yohansen is Back · somewhere else : Apostles and St. Irenaeus · Where is the First Person if Moses and some Disciples wrote Torah and Gospels? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Also under the video with GMS and Leo Yohansen

Leo Yohansen

The gospels also present speeches that could never have been instantly written down or memorized to have been recalled later to be put into a gospel account. That's why the claim that the accounts had been inspired by the holy spirit is made even though there are no witnesses to that either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leo Yohansen That claim would have diverse merits for diverse speeches.

And remember, the environment was well versed in the art of instant memorisation. For instance, in John 3 a Pharisee of an older generation (not the one to which Jesus said over and over "woe to ye Pharisees" but the one which had been astonished in the Temple when He was twelve years) is there, and if Nicodemus became a Christian, he is obviously the one St. John knew the speech from. It is also a hypothesis that St. John was not one of the Twelve, but the host at the Last Supper, and that means he could have been the host of Jesus when Nicodemus came as well. By the way, St. Nicodemus, both RC and EO consider him a saint ...

But overall, it was a given in historiography at the time that the historiographer was giving his wording of what someone had said, often for embellishment, while it was also generally a given that the speaker sought to embellish his words when speaking - this means the actual wording in a historic text and when spoken need not strictly coincide.

The content would.

As the Gospel of John was originally written in Greek, only Matthew had an Aramaic or Hebrew first version, and Nicodemus arguably spoke Aramaic, the fact of translating is already a remove from actual wording, while giving same content.

I

Leo Yohansen

1. There is no such thing as the 'art of instant memorization'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There certainly is. Twelve people take turns to hear a phrase, repeat it several times over, then their turn comes again - for instance. But the fact is, the more you try to memorise in situations where you have to get it instantly, the better you get.

Leo Yohansen

Twelve people can't take turns listening to a phrase and repeating it several times in an ongoing speech. The continuation of the speech itself would disrupt any attempt to memorize any part of it. On top of that, the disciples are portrayed as being individuals of professions such as fishermen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) First, technique. Suppose you had spoken the objection instead of writing it ...

"Twelve people can't take turns"

Peter nudges to Andrew and repeats "twelve people can't take turns" a few times.

"listening to a phrase and repeating it"

Andrew nudges to James. Then he repeats "listening to a phrase and repeating it" a few times.

"several times in an ongoing speech."

James nudges to John, then repeats "several times in an ongoing speech" a few times.

"The continuation of the speech itself"

John nudges to Philip, then repeats "[T]he continuation of the speech itself" a few times,

"would disrupt any attempt to memorize any part of it."

Philip nudges to Bartholomew and then repeats "would disrupt any attempt to memorize any part of it" a few times.

"On top of that, the disciples are portrayed as"

Bartholomew nudges to Matthew, then repeats "on top of that, the disciples are portrayed as"

"as being individuals of professions such as fishermen."

Matthew nudges to James the son of Alphaeus, but fortunately, the speech is already over, so James has nothing to note, while Matthew a few times repeats "as being individuals of professions such as fishermen."

Now to the other objections apart from "there isn't such a technique".

"The continuation of the speech itself would disrupt any attempt to memorize any part of it."

That's supposing they hadn't learned any of the above technique, in which you pay attention when it's your turn to do so.

"On top of that, the disciples are portrayed as being individuals of professions such as fishermen."

We have professions for six of the twelve. Four fishermen (the first four), one tax collector with an education as a Levite before that, one "zealot" meaning presumably an Essenian.

To suppose that the fishermen would not have been able to be taught above or similar technique (I was reconstructing, but a similar technique actually was in use by sthenographers using Tironian notes, two at a time - but these didn't have to memorise, they could just write down) by Jesus, a Levite, and an Essenian, and that the fishermen could not have been taught something like it by John the Baptist (a Cohen) before joining Jesus is having an extremely low view of the human nature in a fisherman or the didactic skills of Our Lord and of his second cousin St. John the Baptist.

Leo Yohansen

1. A Zealot is not an Essene. Josephus is very clear on their distinctions.

Already your imagined scenario fails as several phrases would have had to have been memorized by each individual in a disjointed manner with no one actually listening to what was being said. The fact that there are multiple differing gospel accounts instead of just one testifies to the fact that no one, be it a group or an individual, had simply memorized everything. Had such a thing been done, there wouldn't be accounts with different speeches and different versions of the same speeches and different orders of the same events. If everything had been memorized as part of some sequential group effort, there would only have been a single gospel account with all speeches accounted for. To further imagine what was being taught behind the scenes in contrast to what is actually portrayed, that is, disciples listening to speeches, not memorizing parts of speeches, only testifies to the imaginary nature of it all. Imagination is required to attempt to justify imaginary accounts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1. "A Zealot is not an Essene. Josephus is very clear on their distinctions."

As I recall, zealots were a radical wing of essenes. If I'm wrong, I can look it up.

"Already your imagined scenario fails as several phrases would have had to have been memorized by each individual in a disjointed manner with no one actually listening to what was being said."

Not a real problem. They can fix the whole picture together later.

"The fact that there are multiple differing gospel accounts instead of just one testifies to the fact that no one, be it a group or an individual, had simply memorized everything."

No one says anyone has memorised everything.

"Had such a thing been done, there wouldn't be accounts with different speeches and different versions of the same speeches"

If you refer to Mark 10 on marriage, I suppose Our Lord said this more than once as He was questioned more than once, forget where the parallel was. If it was Matthew, as I think it was, and it was there that the further words "unless it be for fornication" .... it is explainable as Matthew, a Levite, was better at memorising than Peter, a fisherman.

If you refer to Sermon on the Mount, Matthew and Luke, these were two sermons, the Matthean to the disciples, the Lucan to the crowd below.

"and different orders of the same events."

Not sure I recall an example. If you mean cleansing of the temple, I think this occurred twice, once when Our Lord started and once more a few days before the Crucifixion.

"If everything had been memorized as part of some sequential group effort, there would only have been a single gospel account with all speeches accounted for."

No author would have wanted to put all the speeches into a single papyrus scroll, however many they knew. Remember, codex format came into fashion after this.

"To further imagine what was being taught behind the scenes in contrast to what is actually portrayed, that is, disciples listening to speeches, not memorizing parts of speeches, only testifies to the imaginary nature of it all. Imagination is required to attempt to justify imaginary accounts."

Imagination is required to justify lots of real accounts too.

With what I portrayed, the actual text in the Bible would give the lesson without pulling out extras for how the memorisation was being effected, as that would have been taken for granted.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leo Yohansen 1 revisited. "A Zealot is not an Essene. Josephus is very clear on their distinctions."

My bad. A zealot is otherwise a Pharisee, but also a freedom fighter, basically, not an Essene and a freedom fighter.

Pharisees would also have been teaching pupils from early on to memorise.

II

Leo Yohansen

2. Trying to justify how the information of a fictional account had been transmitted by speculating about characters in the fictional account is useless. Especially when the characters in the account are made to use the title 'Rabbi' (John 3:2, 3:26) which hadn't been used until after 70 CE, when Rabbinic Judaism had been established decades after the time portrayed in the gospel accounts. In other words, no gospel accounts had been written before 70 CE and no supposed eyewitnesses would have been around after.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a) Would you mind telling me when the transition from fictional characters in the Church to actual characters in the Church occurred? You do admit that St. Irenaeus of Lyons is an actual person, right?
b) "which hadn't been used until after 70 CE," - I happen to think you are wrong, the title is older than Rabbinic Judaism.

2. a

Leo Yohansen

"a) Would you mind telling me when the transition from fictional characters in the Church to actual characters in the Church occurred? You do admit that St. Irenaeus of Lyons is an actual person, right?

2. a) Would you mind pointing out where Irenaeus is mentioned as a character in any of the fictional accounts referred to?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2 a) The thing is, there is an overlap in lives between what you call "characters of fictional accounts" and persons you admit as historic. St. Irenaeus was in Asia Minor having memories of St. John the Gospeller when he was young (and he can have misunderstood them, he left Asia Minor when 16 : meaning the Gospeller need not be as St. Ireneaeus thought one of the twelve) and St. Ignatius of Antioch was second successor of St. Peter and also disciple of St. Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John the Gospeller.

Leo Yohansen

2. a) There is no historical overlap. Irenaeus had been born c. 130. Whoever he may have had memories of it would not have been of a Palestinian Jew although if the anonymous gospel ascribed to John had been written c. 120, he may indeed have known its anonymous Greek author. Ignatius had not been second successor of Peter who would have been dead by the time of his birth. Being the successor of Peter is yet another church tradition started 300 years after his death.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2. a) "There is no historical overlap. Irenaeus had been born c. 130."

As if there were only he and the "persons in the fictional account" and none between them we know names of.

"Whoever he may have had memories of it would not have been of a Palestinian Jew although if the anonymous gospel ascribed to John had been written c. 120, he may indeed have known its anonymous Greek author."

John wrote the Gospel c. ten years after the Apocalypse. AD 100 as opposed to AD 90. He was most probably a Cohen and one of the 72, not a fisherman and one of the 12.

"Ignatius had not been second successor of Peter who would have been dead by the time of his birth. Being the successor of Peter is yet another church tradition started 300 years after his death."

Here are bishops of Antioch, for you : Peter I ( c. 37/47– c. 53/54), Evodius ( c. 53/54– c. 68/83), Ignatius ( c. 68– c. 107 or c. 83–115). First successor : Evodius. Second successor : Ignatius. QED.

You do not get to state that a Church tradition was "started" year so and so just because it is the earliest recording you know of.

2. b

Leo Yohansen

b) "which hadn't been used until after 70 CE," - I happen to think you are wrong, the title is older than Rabbinic Judaism."

b) It doesn't matter what you chose to think or chose to assert on the matter. Either you can produce Second Temple era common use of the title or you can't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2 b) Between "common use" and "no use" an intermediate exists, namely occasional use. Heard of Rabbi Gamaliel, Rabbi Hillel, Rabbi Shammai? Or was the exact title rather "Rabban"? Well, if "Rabban" occurred, why could the NT received text not be an adaptation of Rabban to post-70 later use? Exodus also has adaptations to later names of places, like "Phithom and Ramesses," in 1:11, the latter city arguably as such named after one of the Ramses pharaos, but these were later than the Exodus. The adaptation would have happened in the apostolic age.

Leo Yohansen

2. b) Both "Rabbi" and "Rabban" are post 70 CE rabbinic titles that had never been used in the time of the individuals mentioned. It's how the rabbinic texts refer to them. It's not how any contemporary texts refers to them. It's like the way that Christians refer to Jesus as 'Jesus Christ' or simply as just 'Christ' as if it were his last name even though he would have never been referred to as such during his lifetime.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2. b) "It's how the rabbinic texts refer to them. It's not how any contemporary texts refers to them."

Exactly how many contemporary texts are there referring to them at all and in situations of conversation?

"'Christ' as if it were his last name even though he would have never been referred to as such during his lifetime."

"Hoshianna Ben David" would be equivalent to "thou art ha-Meshiakh"

III

Leo Yohansen

3. Speaking about actual wording going from spoken to written is already redundant as the words couldn't have been instantly memorized in the first place. No one had stood by listening to something like The Sermon on the Mount being spoken while instantly memorizing it as it was still being spoken.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If there are sufficient people taking turns or if the one preaching the sermon repeats it in front of the disciples sufficiently long, yes, there is.

Leo Yohansen

3. No, there isn't. The one preaching the sermon isn't repeating it. In fact, doing so would have required that person to have instantly memorized his own ongoing spontaneous speech. Simply imagining such things doesn't make them real.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3. You have missed the word "or" ... when Christ made a speech "to the Jews" (as St. John retrospectively names the enemies of Him, writing after AD 70) the speech was long but there were twelve people who could take turns to memorise. On other occasions, like the sermon on the mount, the Matthean version spoken to the disciples, He knew that His audience were expecting to be taught and could afford to either repeat Himself or allow others to repeat Him after each sentence.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Our Lord nudges to St. Peter who repeats: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

And St. Andrew repeats: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Our Lord nudges to all and all twelve repeat: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land."

Same procedure. Note, I'm reconstructing. But not from nothing.

Leo Yohansen

3. This is already dealt with above. Not only is it merely imagined, but the length of the content makes it impossible for the sequential memorization being imagined.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3. Your failure to understand a technique of memorisation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

IV

Leo Yohansen

4. There was no Aramaic first version of Matthew. The author of the gospel ascribed to Matthew had written the account in Greek and had used the gospel ascribed to Mark as his template. That's why the gospels ascribed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are known as the synoptic accounts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a) The actual reason is that they are very akin in storyline compared to St. John's Gospel;
b) the theory of Markan priority is unhistorical, an invention from 19th C. Germany, and useful from start for apostates like Bismarck;
c) and the historic tradition is that St. Matthew was the first Gospeller and that he first wrote in Aramaic before adding a Greek translation, incumbent on you to explain why the Church got this wrong.

4. a

Leo Yohansen

"a) The actual reason is that they are very akin in storyline compared to St. John's Gospel;

4. a) No, they are clearly seen to reproduce word for word vocabulary that no two different people would ever naturally use only to change what is being said to suit the story of the individual account. That is why they even change the order of events. They are all telling different stories using the same literary templates.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4. a) Would you give examples of word for word vocabulary that no two different people would ever naturally use?

Leo Yohansen

4. a) I won't do so in this format as I can't do it justice by presenting them side by side. However, synoptic comparisons of the gospel accounts are available both in libraries and online. When I first studied them, I had to go to a library to see them but now people are fortunate to be able to find them online with as little as a google search. With the texts presented side by side, you'll be able to see how the parallel narrations utilize the exact same word order until a narration differs with the others in the use of its own material.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4. a) "I won't do so in this format as I can't do it justice by presenting them side by side."

Or one below the other.

"However, synoptic comparisons of the gospel accounts are available both in libraries and online. When I first studied them, I had to go to a library to see them but now people are fortunate to be able to find them online with as little as a google search."

You could refer me to such a comparison too - BUT to an example that struck you as important.

"With the texts presented side by side, you'll be able to see how the parallel narrations utilize the exact same word order"

Like SVO and SVO? Like same adjective to O? How much could be due to these being very natural word choices, and that's why I wanted a striking example from you.

"until a narration differs with the others in the use of its own material."

These parts being obviously outside the copying, if any.

4. b

Leo Yohansen

b) the theory of Markan priority is unhistorical, an invention from 19th C. Germany, and useful from start for apostates like Bismarck;

b) The theory of Markan priority is proven by the comparative analysis of the texts that is still done to this very day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4. b) Comparative analysis cannot prove which one of the three has priority.

Leo Yohansen

4. b) Comparative analysis does indeed prove which one has priority. In the material that all share in common, alterations will be made such that Mark and Matthew will match in material that Luke differs with and Mark and Luke will match in material that Matthew differs with but Matthew and Luke are never found to match in material that Mark differs with. They both have material that they share that isn't in Mark but of the material that all three share in common, the two never agree against the material of Mark. This establishes Mark as the primary source that the other two had copied word for word until making their own individual changes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4. b) "Comparative analysis does indeed prove which one has priority. In the material that all share in common, alterations will be made such that Mark and Matthew will match in material that Luke differs with and Mark and Luke will match in material that Matthew differs with but Matthew and Luke are never found to match in material that Mark differs with."

In a situation (as given by Clement the Stromatist) where St. Peter is reading from two texts side by side, Matthew and Luke, and adding some of his own, this would obviously be because St. Mark was noting the words of St. Peter. Believing he was editing a Gospel.

"They both have material that they share that isn't in Mark"

St. Peter skipped some.

"but of the material that all three share in common, the two never agree against the material of Mark. This establishes Mark as the primary source that the other two had copied word for word until making their own individual changes."

Or Markan Gospel as the ultimate outlet, as St. Mark heard St. Peter reading Matthew and Luke.

4. c

Leo Yohansen

c) and the historic tradition is that St. Matthew was the first Gospeller and that he first wrote in Aramaic before adding a Greek translation, incumbent on you to explain why the Church got this wrong."

c) It's incumbent upon anyone claiming an Aramaic version to show it rather than claiming tradition, especially since we know from Papias that the gospel accounts had all been anonymous with only rumors as to who had written them. Attaching rumored names to anonymous accounts long after they had been written doesn't show history for a claim, it shows a tradition of dishonesty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4. c) I think you got St. Papias wrong. If not, it's incumbent on you to cite the passage you consider as proving "rumours" are all we have.

Leo Yohansen

4. c) In Ecclesiastical History 3.39, Papias is cited pertaining to his claim for the authorship of Mark and Matthew as having been told by a presbyter. The very fact that the authorship of the accounts had to be claimed is due to the historical fact that all of the gospel accounts had been written anonymously with the authors never identifying themselves in the texts. It is only by church tradition that names have been attached to the texts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4. c) "In Ecclesiastical History 3.39, ..."

// 14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated. //

In other words, St. Papias is scrupulous enough to give us the chain of evidence. And this St. John the Gospeller arguably one of the 72 and a Cohen.