Archibald Sayce was no Church Father, Reverend Bandas was not Pope

Archibald Sayce was no Church Father, Reverend Bandas was not Pope · Kevin Responded - On Something Else ... · Debate with Skabedab · Other exchanges under same video · Other on Kevin Davis's First Video with Rev. Rudolph Bandas

The Bible and Science (young earth or old earth)
Catholic Family Podcast, 19 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zLi2XdPv7s

3:26 I stopped the video here to take a coffee, and can take the opportunity to comment ever so slightly on what has been said.

A) Whatever St. Augustine of Hippo Regia thought of the days' actual nature, it was not that they prolonged Biblical Chronology for millennia prior to the creation of Adam. He also had no plan for prolonging Biblical chronology after that event, further than the longest Biblical text chronologies suggest, i e taking LXX readings for both Genesis 5 and 11 and including the Second Cainan.
B) The judge who on part of Pope St. Pius X stated you were allowed to prolong the Biblical chronology backwards by extending the timespan of Genesis 1, a certain Sulpician from Paris, Fulcran Vigourous. Also he had no plan for prolonging Biblical chronology after the creation of Adam, except perhaps extending Genesis 11 by some generations presumed to be omitted from all texts, and even that was not immediately on his agenda. Also, he had no occasion to endorse that latter view on the Roman field, as he had done on the Parisian one.

In other words, what expires to 1909 in and of itself allows you to believe Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, but only provided you do not pretend to place Adam 40 000~50 000 or 600 000 or 2 000 000 years ago (putting the limits for "first behaviourally modern Sapiens" / "last common ancestor of Sapiens and Neanderthal" / "earliest Homo erectus").

3:51 Not totally irrespective of duration, though.

All the examples you gave would in Greek, by exchanging day for a synonom, by "kairos" and none would be "aion" ... in other words, it would be a question of historic or personal opportunity, not a question of really long even historical periods. Similarily, when we say "in the days of John Lackland, there was a fire in London" we do not mean that London was burning every single year of the Middle Ages. I mean, 27 May 1199 – 19 October 1216 is 17 years, while the Middle Ages is 64 times longer (counting it in England from withdrawal of legions to accession of Henry VIII), and it is not referred to as "the days of" ... (the great fire in his day was July 10 1212 - he had authorised poor people to build outside the walls on the bridge to Suthwark, which they did in wood and their huts were more crowded than houses inside the walls).

4:29 The motivation here given is a give-away that days of creation meaning multiples of 24 hours is indeed the best or at least most natural reading.

6:18 There is no weak point, since the cloud became luminous by direct divine fiat.

7:32 "not a scientific textbook" - stop, here we are confusing categories.

When a literal reading of Genesis 1 conflicts with a modern "earth sciences" course, it is not a question of conflicting with its scientific explanations of what the elements are or how much silicium there is on earth, it is a question of conflicting with the "earth sciences" narration on how the world began, which is a species of quasi history.

"which would have been unintelligible to the Jews" - because of what, precisely?

I have come across the idea that "millions of years" would have been unintelligible, but that is BS. To express "million" or even "hundred millions" there is a term in Daniel: "thousands of thousands and ten thousands of ten thousands" ... even the Egyptians had a hieroglyph for "one million" it is a person putting up his hand to the mouth in awe.

7:39 "adapted to the intelligence of the reader"

This could be taken in two senses.

1) As in adapted to the things they had already intellected? I'd not even grant that, if millions of years were true, but it's not as bad as the other alternative.

Plus, given the amount of time the Hebrews spent in the desert, God could have taken the opportunity to give them some understanding of some matters coinciding with modern science, if it was true. Not a complete course, but enough to be able to avoid highly inaccurate circumlocutions in Genesis 1 and close to deception in the day of Joshua, the long day, that is, if He stopped earth from rotating, but everyone thought earth was as still as usual, and heavenly bodies were first stopping and then resuming motions.

2) The more normal use of "intelligence" is not "the things one has already intellected" but "one's power of intellection" = IQ.

Here, if that is his meaning, Bandas was either a very ludicrous antisemite, since even Hitler would have granted Jews have a high IQ, whatever he thought of their EQ, or, a racist in time periods, an anti-bronze age chauvinist.

If the Bronze Age was a very violent period, like the XXth C., there is still nothing to show that this depends on it being peopled with human beings of a low IQ, any more than the XXth C.

8:47 I think this is the theory from Paris 1920, from Jesuit Émile Mangenot. 24 years before he did so, you had Catholic works defending Young Earth Creationism (as well as Day Age, as well as Gap Theory). But 24 years after he did so, priests in precisely France were already getting involved in a wave of abusive and often counternatural breach of their celibacy vows.

A report on the victims of such abuses could have but didn't include acts committed in the 1930's. It did include acts committed in the 1940's.

The theory that Bandas is taking over from Émile Mangenot was a Trojan horse for an apostasy, which led to paederasty before it led to Vatican II.

9:18 4 000 years 9:20 interpreting the days of Genesis as 9:22 indefinite periods we have made 9:24 provision for the theories of scientists 9:25 who maintain that the world is millions 9:27 of years old 9:28 but in so doing do we not encounter 9:30 another difficulty does not the bible 9:32 say that mankind was only four thousand 9:34 years old at the coming of Christ 9:36 in regard to this difficult problem of 9:38 biblical chronology

This is again an incitement to apostasy, and my one hope that Pius XII was not Apostate and non-pope in 1951 is, he was not too aware of this debate or ideally not at all.

ANY major extension beyond 5500 years will on SOME point involve an apostatic implication.

Even § 3 of Dei Verbum is better than Bandas in this respect.

AA AA

@nomorelies7755

People who don't think this mentality leads to apostacy are sheltered and have never seen the Novus Ordo in action very long.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

True, @nomorelies7755!

9:40 in mind the following principles one the 9:42 church has not defined the age of the 9:44 world but leaves it an open question 9:46 hence there can be no conflict between 9:49 faith and science on this point

To the first, the Church has two conflicting authorities in the Latin rite about the age of the world.

The Roman Martyrology for December 25 is based on a LXX reading of Genesis 5 and a LXX minus second Cainan reading of Genesis 11.
The Vulgate however has the same chronology as the Masoretic for these chapters.

And in the Byzantine rite there is also the totally LXX based work of George Syncellus, which I presume Uniates recite on Sept 1, the Byzantine New Year.

It is true that the Church has not decided between these, but it is also true that all of these chronologies are approximations of an elusive but not negligible quantity called "Biblical chronology" - as for the theory the Church were undecided between Biblical chronology and bringing in lots of more years, that is a novum, contrary to Trent Session IV and to the humanly historical credibility of Genesis 3.

To the second, if the so called "science" involved in dating some Cro Magnon artefacts in mammoth ivory or even their owners to having lived 20 000 years ago is what is meant, yes, there is a statement between this and the faith in the Bible.

Just because "the Church has not decided" also does not mean "the faith has no decision past or future" ... nor "the faithful have no means to decide before the magisterium does" ...

Recently one Athanasius Schneider totally discounted the theory of St. Robert Bellarmine that a pope (if validly such) having fallen into notorious heresy loses his papacy. Why? Because the Church had not decided for this theory, according to Athanasius Schneider. The exegetical principle of Bandas and that of Schneider involve the same pusillanimity.

It certainly is most prudent for a young girl to avoid a fight with a grown man. It does not remain imprudent if it becomes her only means of saving her chastity even at the price of martyrdom, isn't that so, St. Maria Goretti? Equally, it is usually most prudent for laymen not to take up a position that is not decided on by the Church, but this general preference is not valid for all situations, when A) you refuse to take up a Catholic position because the Church has not dogmatised it and B) you take up a non-Catholic position because Bandas had an imprimatur, that is courting apostasy. Highly imprudent.

9:58 Precisely as Bandas equivocated about the decision of the Church, he equivocates here.

There is no one passage, which by itself alone says how old the world is, but there are two passages that between them state that between the very first man and Abraham visiting a pharao of Egypt (whether early dynastic or pre-dynastic, not sure), there are 2000 - 3500 years. The visit to Egypt was a year or maybe two after God's promise, and we know from St. Stephen, the promise was 430 years prior to the Exodus event. So, Adam was created between 2500 and 4000 years before the Exodus event. The generations from Abraham to King David have the Exodus roughly as midpoint, which means that if the Temple was not exactly 480 years after the Exodus, it cannot have been even a century beyond that. The time from King David to Our Lord is basically known.

So, there are several passages that between them do not pinpoint the age of the world to exactly one year, but depending on text versions and sometimes interpretative choices (like Syncellus puts the Exodus in 1683 BC, not in 1510 as the Roman Martyrology does) these passages do provide a ball park for the age of mankind, which, however little it have the precision of the works in recent history, at least is precise enough to exclude the theory any man of whatever type lived 20 000 years ago.

9:59 three Catholic faith teaches that Adam 10:01 and Eve were the first parents of the 10:02 actual human race if men existed in 10:05 preceding geological epics they all 10:07 perished since the Bible explicitly 10:09 states that Adam was the only man in Eve 10:12 the only woman at the time of creation 10:15 this hypothesis of men existing in the 10:17 early geological epics is usually 10:18 propounded by those who maintain that 10:20 man is evolved wholly out of the ape or 10:23 some animal ancestor and who deny to man 10:25 a spiritual soul

In this passage, Bandas is showing himself ignorant of skeleta found since his day, and of carbon dates.

The science to which he would have liked to reconcile the faith in the Bible is since then simply out of date.

Whatever views you have on the spiritual soul, you cannot deny that Shanidar 1 is carbon dated. And that these carbon dates either stand with the general old earth paradigm, or either fall or get reinterpreted only as the general old earth paradigm is out.

For instance, on a young earth view, you can very easily posit that the atmosphere was created with only very few atoms of Carbon 14 in creation week - like what the cosmic radiation had produced in two days. After that it rose slower than expected, up to the Flood, and after the Flood quicker, until at the Fall of Troy it at long last reached modern levels.

So, is Shanidar 1 skeleton 46 000 before the present? Or is he "somewhat before the Flood"?

He was a real man. Why? Because he was kept alive in ways that beasts would not provide for their own ones. His right arm was cut off, and it had time to heal before he died. This time to heal, a beast with near human anatomy could not provide himself, with one arm lost, any more than a man, and would not provide for the own tribe. Only men could and would provide it for their own, or in some cases in love of strangers and enemies.

10:34 "incomplete and fragmentary"

1) Incomplete, certainly granted. The example given for Matthew would involve damnatio memoriae for the three generations following Athalia, and for one more.
2) Fragmentary, does not follow.

There is a huge difference between a genealogy which gives nearly all forefathers but leaves out 5 % (as St. Matthew does) and one which leaves out nearly all but gives 5 %.

There is no Biblical or Patristic argument to justify the "fragmentary" thesis, and the only reason Bandas even thought of it was in order to harmonise the nonsense of dating men to c. 20 000 BP, for instance.

10:45 Note that precisely three generations are omitted. The husband of Athalia is not omitted, she started sinning after he died, but once she starts, God looks on the sins of this ancestor into the third or fourth generation, hence exactly three generations are omitted.

The claim about Numbers is however a vague claim coming from some kind of modernist theologian (meaning moderately modernist, one not culled out by Pascendi or Lamentabile).

10:51 frequently admitted the Jews were fond 10:53 of dividing their genealogies into more 10:55 or less artificial groups according to 10:57 the mystical numbers determined in 10:59 advance in order to make the generation 11:01 agree with such figures they would omit 11:03 or repeat certain names

This is generalising the practise of St. Matthew.

As Matthew omits 5 %, this is not sufficient to extend the timelines of Genesis 5 and 11 considerably.

All other places of Biblical chronology are determined in much more precise ways than the possibly shifting ground of a genealogy.

11:06 as Professor SAYCE points 11:08 out the Hebrew vocabulary was extremely 11:10 limited and the Hebrew writer often had 11:14 often to use one word in several 11:16 different meanings thus for example the 11:18 term sun was frequently used as 11:21 equivalent to descendant and successor 11:23 while to the Hebrew reader who was 11:25 acquainted with a Semitic idiom these 11:28 words conveyed exact meanings to us they 11:30 present difficulties we cannot compute 11:33 accurately the age of individual members 11:34 and especially of the span covered by 11:36 them collectively

Bandas is here relying on ...

"Archibald Henry Sayce (25 September 1845 – 4 February 1933) was a pioneer British Assyriologist and linguist, who held a chair as Professor of Assyriology at the University of Oxford from 1891 to 1919.[1] He was able to write in at least twenty ancient and modern languages,[2] and was known for his emphasis on the importance of archaeological and monumental evidence in linguistic research.[3] He was a contributor to articles in the 9th, 10th and 11th editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica.[4]"

"In 1869, Sayce was appointed a lecturer at Queen's College.[8] He was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1870.[citation needed]"

I actually don't think a citation is needed. Sayce was an Anglican heretic, just as much as Ken Ham is a heretic on questions like Baptism ...

In other words, when you rely on Bandas, you rely on Sayce. When you say you can be Catholic and rely on Sayce, and I am suspect for "relying on Ken Ham," you are sifting mosquitos and swallowing camels.

On top of that, he was from a highly colonial culture, when he died in 1933, the Commonwealth was still standing strong and Mahatma Gandhi was not news, a culture with a top heavy superiority complex towards any culture which was not Modern Western. Hence, he found he needed an excuse to put some geologist or especially archaeologist above a hagiographer and it was at hand in his cultural bias.

In Conclusion (though the video is not finished yet, I may resume it later), though the book of Reverend Bandas had imprimatur or imprimi postest from a bishop, an orthodox pope could still place it on the Index, if that were to be resumed.

[I did resume it after posting]

14:00 In fact, saying "it is totally true that it doesn't" actually fails to account for some unexpected snags.

A person advocating the secular sexual mores of 50 years ago, would perhaps have said "sure, getting married is nice and all that, but why does it matter, having plenty of children is nice too, if you can afford it, but why does it matter?" - and a Catholic would have been totally in his rights to say, this fails to account for some unexpected (by that man) snags.

There is a logical connexion from allowing a married or cohabiting heterosexual couple to contracept and what's happening in California, right now, where gay couples can say "look, it's 12 months we haven't been able to get a child, social security needs to provide us the effective right to a surrogate mother"

There also is a logical connexion from allowing the nonsense of Rev. Bandas just cited and rank apostasy.