Protestants Don't Have the Council of Trent to Guide Them

Adam, Eve, and Early Humans (amp; More Weird Questions) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World — I listened and commented · Protestants Don't Have the Council of Trent to Guide Them

Jimmy Akin being nominally a Catholic should know better (and yes, practising and in full communion with "Pope Francis" is nominal in my book if you disbelieve dogmas). Gavin Ortlund has slightly more of an excuse.

He certainly seems to imply that Adam was an individual person, if you go through his three options, which is better, more conform to Trent Session V, canons I to III.

But he is handicapped by acceptance of Old Age and presumably also Evolution.

I must admit I nibbled at the video, but "ancient Adam" would make Genesis 3 non-historic, or historically not-likely-accurate, "recent Adam" would make Adam suspectedly not ancestor of all men who live, so, they are as problematic as Swamidass, who deserved a special refutation, since his model involves a special evil.

Were Adam and Eve Historical People?
Truth Unites | 29 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RyzXYHP6iU

16:46 In order to avoid Supralapsarian Calvinism (or making God the author of evil), it's not enough there was a historic fall.

It has to be an individual fall.

You see, collectives don't enjoy freewill or consciousness. They have shared objects of decision, they have shared objects of view or knowledge, but they do not have one shared faculty of either.

This means, a collective as such by itself can't make a free will decision.

So, Adam has to be an individual.

The Problem of Pain was a nearly perfect book by CSL, but the chapter on the fall is a trainwreck. Especially as CSL has more than once noted:

• collectives have no mind
• collectives have no will
• collectives have no eternal souls
• only the individuals who make them up have these things.

But there is more. Adam can't be an individual among tens of thousands of others, as some have proposed and Jimmy Akin has presented as one of the options his Catholic Church accepts.

Because, if the other 10 000 were not yet fallen, they did not need Adam as representative to have grace. And therefore Adam's failure could not deprive them of original justice.

So, Adam has to be an individual with no peers (Eve was kind of a peer, but still derivative in a way that "10 000 other couples" wouldn't have been).

16:46 bis, also on Theodicy.

Adam can't have been born to any prehuman ancestors.

• if his immediate progenitors were already human, he wasn't the first man
• if they were not human, they could not teach him to speak
• if God had given him language and not to them, and let them raise him, he'd have been the odd "ape" out of the "clan"
• if God had freed him from them, he would have felt loss, apart from shame in what he had been prior to that loss (also valid if God made him human only when he was adult)
• if God had given him amnesia while releasing him from them, that amnesia would have been a loss, a kind of error;

in all of these cases, God would have caused Adam some kind of evil before he had even sinned. Theological impossibility.

CDK008

@CDK008-hm3ue

Adam being the first man doesn't have to be a biological statement, just like in 1st Corinthians, Jesus is the second man, but that has nothing to do with biology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@CDK008-hm3ue It has to do with metabiology.

He is the first being without original sin.

In the case of Adam:

• it has always been taken to be a biological statement;
• any way in which it were not would actually take away from the goodness of God, at least all that I have gone through.

CDK008

@hglundahl the first being without original sin need not be the first being biologically. Hence why Jesus can be the second man, and we know that this also doesn't suggest that mankind went extinct after Jesus. And no, it hasn't always been taken to be a biological statement. Gavin cites references to the contrary in this very recording. 32:30

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CDK008-hm3ue I didn't say Jesus was the first being biologically, but I said he was (with His Mother) the first being without original sin, which is metabiology.

St. Augustine very certainly believed that Adam was the first man in a biological sense. So, no exception offered.

Can you start giving one of the scenarios in which he is not biologically the first man, and I'll pick out why that one is not compatible with God's goodness? (Unless it's one I really haven't heard of).

CDK008

@hglundahl if your passage doesn't suggest that Jesus is biologically the second man, then it also doesn't suggest Adam to be the first biological man.

And regarding Adam, schools of thought have viewed Adam as archetypal since the dawn of time. Let alone in the texts original ancient near east context, in which humanity was created as a population, and not just two individuals. Hence why Adam and Eve are never mentioned in genesis 1.

We might also consider someone more recent than the ancient near east:
Isaac La Peyrère, French theologian of the 1500s. Or Maimonedes, 12th century AD.

Unfortunately the earliest church also thought the earth was flat, geocentric, and young, so they wouldn't have had much reason to consider prior people, though here, as noted in the video, Saint Augustine acknowledges the possibility that Adam had parents. Augustine would not have been open to such a possibility, had not the potential or consideration been around, even in his time. Popular scholars Jack Collins and Dick Averbeck have also considered the possibility of pre Adamic people due to passages in the Bible related to the nephelim and Cain finding a wife and fearing for his life from other people (though no other sons or daughters were born prior to Seth).

@hglundahl sure. Your next item there states that if Adams parents were not human, they wouldn't be able to teach him to speak. I would deny this as well. There's nothing in the Bible that might suggest that Adams parents wouldn't be able to speak the same language that he did.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CDK008-hm3ue "then it also doesn't suggest Adam to be the first biological man."

Jesus is kind of meta-Adam, hence meta-biological. Adam is simply Adam, hence biological.

"schools of thought have viewed Adam as archetypal since the dawn of time."

You are equivocating on type in the sense of sensus allegoricus, with "archetype" in a Jungian sense, they are far from the same.

You are also not eager to give examples.

"Let alone in the texts original ancient near east context, in which humanity was created as a population, and not just two individuals."

Enuma Elish expresses Babylonian error, not Hebrew truth.

"Hence why Adam and Eve are never mentioned in genesis 1."

And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

Note, doesn't say "males and females" but "male and female" ... Genesis 1:27 is talking about Adam and Eve.

"Isaac La Peyrère, French theologian of the 1500s."

Condemned by the Catholic Church, for that.

"Or Maimonedes, 12th century AD."

Outside the Christian Church altogether. When it comes to the Moseses that Jews venerate, I don't like Mendelides or Maimonides the way I like Amramides.

"Unfortunately the earliest church also thought the earth was flat, geocentric, and young,"

Apart from "flat" and "unfortunately" you are correct.

Thanks for showing that you despise early Christians.

"as noted in the video, Saint Augustine acknowledges the possibility that Adam had parents."

He did not. Gavin makes a vast overreach on some rhetoric figure of speech in a work he can quotemine as much as he wants, because it isn't online. City of God is.

The City of God (Book XII) Chapter 21.— That There Was Created at First But One Individual, and that the Human Race Was Created in Him.
Now that we have solved, as well as we could, this very difficult question about the eternal God creating new things, without any novelty of will, it is easy to see how much better it is that God was pleased to produce the human race from the one individual whom He created, than if He had originated it in several men. For as to the other animals, He created some solitary, and naturally seeking lonely places — as the eagles, kites, lions, wolves, and such like; others gregarious, which herd together, and prefer to live in company — as pigeons, starlings, stags, and little fallow deer, and the like: but neither class did He cause to be propagated from individuals, but called into being several at once. Man, on the other hand, whose nature was to be a mean between the angelic and bestial, He created in such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as his rightful Lord, and piously kept His commandments, he should pass into the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention of death, a blessed and endless immortality; but if he offended the Lord his God by a proud and disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do — the slave of appetite, and doomed to eternal punishment after death. And therefore God created only one single man, not, certainly, that he might be a solitary, bereft of all society, but that by this means the unity of society and the bond of concord might be more effectually commended to him, men being bound together not only by similarity of nature, but by family affection. And indeed He did not even create the woman that was to be given him as his wife, as he created the man, but created her out of the man, that the whole human race might derive from one man.

So, St. Augustine said very clearly that Adam had no parents.

"Popular scholars Jack Collins and Dick Averbeck have also considered the possibility of pre Adamic people"

They are no Church Fathers, they are no Scholastics, their popularity has notes of end times apostasy.

"due to passages in the Bible related to the nephelim"

Nothing that denies they descend, on the human side, from Adam.

"and Cain finding a wife"

Doesn't say he found his wife in Nod. He knew her in Nod.

"and fearing for his life from other people (though no other sons or daughters were born prior to Seth)."

Doesn't say no other sons or daughters were born before Seth.

"if Adams parents were not human, they wouldn't be able to teach him to speak. I would deny this as well."

Do you suggest that Adam's parents were angels?

B E A S T S, non-human animals, cannot speak.

"There's nothing in the Bible that might suggest that Adams parents wouldn't be able to speak the same language that he did."

With your cavalier attitude to the Bible, your "where is it in the Bible?" attitude to me is ridiculous.

I don't need to consult the Bible to know that apes don't speak!

I also don't need to consult the Bible to know that human speech has a very different basic structure to ape communications, like I don't need to consult the Bible to know 2 + 2 is 4 or pi is a size to size ratio.

CDK008

@hglundahl ‭1 Corinthians 15:45, 47-48 NET‬
[45] So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living person”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
[47] The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. [48] Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly.

No. The passage isn't switching between biological and non biological. It's just archetypal. And just as Jesus is not biologically the second or last man, so too is Adam not the first.

@hglundahl Adam and Eve aren't mentioned in chapter 1. You can stubbornly resist all you want, you can't make them magically appear. And no, in regular English we just say, they are male and female. And this plural language is not limited to just a couple. Fish, birds, and other animals likewise were not made as couples. As noted by Dr. John Walton, Genesis 2 also follows a teledoth, which do not involve the recapitulation of narratives. Chapter 2 is just a sequel to chapter 1. It does not occur before it or even at the same time.

@hglundahl and yes, many early church fathers were flat earthers. Sorry if this hurts your feelings. But glad you've acknowledged the geocentric part. The point being that, they didn't know 21st century science, so it's not clear why they would even hold to views of an ancient earth or a spherical earth anyway. And that's otherwise ok if you want to ignore any ancient source that was outside of the immediate interpretation of early canon. It doesn't matter because the early church fathers were never the context for Genesis to begin with.

"Moses ben Maimon[a] (1138–1204), commonly known as Maimonides (/maɪˈmɒnɪdiːz/ my-MON-ih-deez)[b] and also referred to by the Hebrew acronym Rambam (Hebrew: רמב״ם)[c], was a Sephardic rabbi and philosopher who became one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars of the Middle Ages."

"Well he wasn't Christian, so his understanding of Torah is irrelevant" said every sour YEC ever.

And as noted in the video, St Augustine acknowledges the possibility that Adam had a mother. It's right there quoted by Gavin in the video.

It's a valid potential. And as we all know, everyone in the Bible is made out of dust.

And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7

For he knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust.
Psalms 103:14

You hide your face, they are terrified. You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
Psalms 104:29

By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, until your return to the ground. For from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Genesis 3:19

Remember that you fashioned me like clay; and will you turn me to dust again?
Job 10:9

Then Abraham answered and said, “Look, please, I was bold to speak to my Lord, but I am dust and ashes.
Genesis 18:27

Your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west, and to the east, and to the north and to the south. And all the families of the earth will be blessed through you and through your descendants.
Genesis 28:14

Abraham for example had a mother, so we know that it's not a statement about biological origins.

@hglundahl regarding speech, nobody ever said that Adams parents would have been chimpanzees or orangutans. You don't have any good reason for believing that they couldn't have been able to speak. The Bible certainly doesn't say such a thing. Science doesn't say such a thing either. You're just making your beliefs up as you go.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CDK008-hm3ue "The passage isn't switching between biological and non biological."

It is, since "living person" refers to biology.

"Adam and Eve aren't mentioned in chapter 1."

What other single male and single female are possible?

"Fish, birds, and other animals likewise were not made as couples."

Cut out likewise. None of them were referred to as singular male and singular female.

"As noted by Dr. John Walton, Genesis 2 also follows a teledoth, which do not involve the recapitulation of narratives. Chapter 2 is just a sequel to chapter 1. It does not occur before it or even at the same time."

John Walton is wrong, the bulk of Genesis 2 is an expansion on some verses in Genesis 1 to beginning of Genesis 2.

"many early church fathers were flat earthers."

Many were flat earthers, possible, but this does not equate to making it a Church teaching, if others precisely weren't.

"The point being that, they didn't know 21st century science,"

They were also no experts on astrology, is that why they condemned determinism and pretending one's fate is written in the stars?

"And as noted in the video, St Augustine acknowledges the possibility that Adam had a mother."

What I heard and read on the screen was not about a mother, it was about a womb. It was also not about acknowledging a possibility, it was about posing a question, which can be done for all sorts of reasons, some of them rhetoric.

GAVIN quoted from a work that cannot be accessed online. At least not outside paywalls. He can quotemine it all he likes. I gave an opposite and very clear view on Adam's firstness, from a work actually accessible: City of God.

"Abraham for example had a mother, so we know that it's not a statement about biological origins."

In Adam's case the origin was precisely non-biological. Abraham's words acknowledge the judgement God pronounced.

"nobody ever said that Adams parents would have been chimpanzees or orangutans."

Including me. The problem is, if Homo sapiens had evolved from a common ancestor of himself and of chimpanzees, there would have been no way to naturally evolve human language.

"Science doesn't say such a thing either."

The problem is, "science" doesn't give a clear case for the contrary either, it's as spurious as Abiogenesis. Students of abiogenesis are no closer to putting the first amino acids in viable reproducible order into a membrane than Oparin was. Tomasello and Pinker have narrowed down the options for glottogenesis in such a way that options previously held are no longer viable, but the remainder is very far from an actual option.

If Adam had had progenitors able to speak, they would have been men, they would have been created in the image of God, and Adam wouldn't have been at a theological pivot position like the one we both pretend to acknowledge.

If they weren't, there is no way that human speech could have evolved since the time when ancestors less direct were more apelike, on the Evolutionist view. I'd rather see some possibility of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself and his horse up by the ponytail, than language beginning like that.

CDK008

@hglundahl "John Walton is wrong"

Seems like a lazy response. In fact, it is you who are wrong.

"What other couple is possible", it's a population hence why it says that God created "humanity", and Adam and Eve are never mentioned.

Yes, many early church fathers were flat earthers.

"What I heard was about a womb" yes, and wombs are of mothers, which is what Augustine was addressing.

Abraham was made of dust just as Adam was. Abraham had a mother, and so too did Adam. Just like everyone else made of dust in the Bible, ie all of humanity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CDK008-hm3ue "wombs are of mothers, which is what Augustine was addressing."

You are sure he was adressing it as a possibility or he was doing rhetoric?

You and I do not access Genesis according to the letter twelve books online.

I am sure he was not adressing it as theologically possible, because of what he says in City of God, which I can access in context, and so can you.

"Population" is eisegesis.
"Mankind" may be to the point, but it says "man" first in the singular, then "male and female" each in the singular, a very close parallel to Genesis 2.

If Adam was not literally made of actual dust, the use of the phrase in the rest of the Bible becomes otiose.

@CDK008-hm3ue Noting you had no answer on language.

CDK008

@hglundahl your argument related to language doesn't make any sense. The Bible isn't a science textbook. All of your responses are lazy and are the result of a failed hermeneutic called "scientific concordism". You seem to readily ignore Gavin on Augustine, disregard traditional rabbinic sources, baselessly claim Walton is wrong as if you know better, and suggest confused notions of the theory of evolution which you clearly don't appear to have a baseline understanding of. You also seem to disregard ancient near east cosmology and context of Genesis with your swift disregard of enuma elish.

You just aren't ready for what the Bible is actually saying. You aren't ready to receive the Word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CDK008-hm3ue "your argument related to language doesn't make any sense"

OK, you tell me how it makes sense that human language evolved?

"The Bible isn't a science textbook"

Never said it was.

"All of your responses are lazy and are the result of a failed hermeneutic called "scientific concordism"."

I do not feel any need to put in effort into this kind of really worn out talking points.

I also do not feel that a categorisation or dismissal of category constitute a valid refuation of my points.

"You seem to readily ignore Gavin on Augustine,"

Because I am NOT ignoring the Augustine I can read in context.

"disregard traditional rabbinic sources,"

Maimonides "traditional"? That's like terming Teilhard de Chardin a traditional Catholic exegete!

"baselessly claim Walton is wrong as if you know better,"

You made a baseless claim he was right, as if he knew better. Baseless for baseless.

"And suggest confused notions of the theory of evolution which you clearly don't appear to have a baseline understanding of"

I prefer making an accurate analysis on salient points, going beyond your very "baseline" understanding the evolution you were taught in kindergarten.

"You also seem to disregard ancient near east cosmology and context of Genesis with your swift disregard of enuma elish."

I gave no swift disregard. I gave a very pertinent analysis. Enuma Elish gave a collectivist origin of mankind, because Babylon stands for collectivist error.

"You just aren't ready for what the Bible is actually saying."

It's certainly not saying Enuma Elish is right.

"You aren't ready to receive the Word."

Not from your ilk. Quomodo audient, nisi sit qui praedicat, quomodo praedicent nisi mittuntur ... you lack apostolic mission.

33:17 De Genesi ad litteram 6.13.23, CSEL28:1, 187
a) I can't find it on a google
b) I also can't find it on CCEL (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) when doing a search.
c) when I look up St. Augustine Volumes on Early Church Fathers, I can't find this either.

Volume I. Prolegomena: St. Augustine's Life and Work, Confessions, Letters
Volume II. The City of God, Christian Doctrine
Volume III. On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises
Volume IV. The Anti-Manichaean Writings, The Anti-Donatist Writings
Volume V. Anti-Pelagian Writings
Volume VI. Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels
Volume VII. Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies
Volume VIII. Expositions on the Psalms

In other words, you have given a reference that cannot be checked online in St. Augustine's context.

So, basically, as long as De Genesi ad litteram, both the liber imperfectus and the libri XII are not online, anyone who's quoting them, unless referring to a physical copy, is bluffing.

[My own references are to the physical copy in the Georges Pompidou library, a Loeb edition]

38:59 I think you may be misreading his rhetorical style a bit.

I think he let the question hang loose for a bit, just to settle it a bit later on.

But even if he didn't, there is a very good reason why God being good didn't create Adam in a womb. At least not one in a real female body and with normal nine months and so on.

a) If it had been in a human womb, he would not have been the first man. His sin could not have impacted us.
b) If it had been in a non-human womb, God would have been cruel to Adam.

38:59 bis — Was just to the library.

No, it wasn't a Loeb edition, but it was similar.

Twice over it was pointed out that Adam was the first man and had no parents, and when it comes to normal gestational development, it was pointed out that Jesus didn't take a year to make wine from water via the soil, the plant in the sunshine, the harvest and pressing and fermentation, but God in the flesh did it in one moment.

So, whether you were an inattentive reader or not quite candid, you were giving the wrong impression.

55:20 What if I told you, I have a model for Carbon 14 that allows Göbekli Tepe to start and end in the range of death from Noah to birth of Peleg?

(350 resp. 401 after the Flood)

Yes, it involves identifying Göbekli Tepe with Nimrod's Babel.

This way, yes, Adam and Eve are older than the Neolithic. But they are still only created 7200 (or 7500 years ago).

If you think dates should be systematically trusted, never tweaked by Biblical considerations, what do you make of Genesis 14?

Abraham lived c. 2000 BC, En Gedi's chalcolithic is dated to 3500 BC, and after that En Gedi is empty to the iron age.

You can hardly pretend the Amorrhaeans in Asason-Tamar were included for a purely symbolic reason.

1:05:33 Swamidass' idea of people "outside the garden" misses what "God's image" means.

If they were people, they were God's image. And Adam wasn't the first man.

If they weren't people, they had no freewill, and it was at least the rape component of bestiality involved in "marrying" them.

1:07:18 How about being more careful about "science" and saying about "40 000 years ago" or "evolutionary origins" when presented:

• do we really know that?
• if not, might we actually know the opposite?

In the time scale, I know the opposite from the Bible. In origins, I know the opposite simply from language.

Jonathan W[eirich]

@jonathanw1106

Thank you for a completely incoherent comment

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 What's "incoherent"?

I'm asking others to ask if they actually know modern science.
I also ask them to ask if perhaps the opposite can be known.

I then continue to claim I actually do know the opposite.

Feel free to show me wrong, but if you can get away with the impression "incoherent" I think you need to improve your reading skills!

1:07:32 If

• you don't know how to put all the pieces together and
• there is a way to do it

why exclude Young Earth Creationism from being the valid option?

• if the world started 7500 or 7200 years ago (or 6000)
• if Homo sapiens doesn't stand as a late development from far older Neanderthals or Denisovans (sorry, Heidelbergians) or at least far older Homo erectus, but all of these branch out from Adam and Eve and are mostly culled off at the Flood (with the exception of one Homo sapiens tribe a bit intermingled with Neanderthals and Denisovans, the family on the Ark)
• if the datings are very off
• if there is no bridge whatsoever to Australopithecus or to now extant apes (beyond a common creator, God)
• THEN we have an individual Adam, ancestor to all, recent enough for Genesis 3 to be accurately transmitted history, precisely as we always had.

Jonathan W[eirich]

@hglundahl if everything we know about chemistry, physics, cosmology, geology, anthropology, archeology, paleontology is fundamentally wrong, then yes we can consider YEC

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 I'm sorry, but your "all or nothing" and your implication of hard sciences like chemistry and physics with ideologised things like anthropology, that simply isn't the measure of coherence.

It's a piece of flashy rhetoric, not an argument even.

If everything we know about human language is fundamentally wrong, it just might have evolved from non-human. That's not an option, since we actually do know things about human language.

Are you content with the rhetoric, or do you want the argument?

Jonathan W[eirich]

@hglundahl my point is that all scientific disciplines are built on each other. You can't eliminate major claims such as how we date things without destroy other fundamental laws about how chemistry and physics works. This typically comes up when YECs object to radiometric dating and start proposing wildly different starting conditions to account for the apparent ages. Another example is how long it takes for starlight to reach us, you can't postulate scientifically around that without undermining mathematical models and our understanding of physics. Nice try sounding smart.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 "You can't eliminate major claims such as how we date things without destroy other fundamental laws about how chemistry and physics works"

Good talking point, but major leaps in the logic.

I am not denying how Potassium Argon is done, I am pointing out the Flood waters chilling the lava would trap extra argon and make the reading older.

I am not denying how Carbon 14 dating is done, I am offering a calibration based on the Bible rather than tree rings.

"start proposing wildly different starting conditions"

How is rapid cooling of lava or rapidish build up of Carbon 14 "wildly differring"?

"Another example is how long it takes for starlight to reach us,"

Probably the two way speed of light gives a very good clue about the one way speed of light. If stars are no further away than 1 light day, that's no problem for YEC.

I notice you didn't take me up on language, but human language in every instance of vocal language has three levels.

• phonemes meaningless by themselves
• morphemes made from phonemes, usually more than one, in a strict sequence, and each morpheme having a partial meaning, like a subject or a predicate or sth
• phrase, made from morphemes, like a subject a copula and a predicate, giving a complete message.

No beast has this kind of three level approach to communication. How would you account for the transition? Try sounding a bit smart, will you!

Jonathan W[eirich]

@hglundahl isn't the measure of coherence" lol what is this sentence

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 a reference to your previous answer to other comment.

Jonathan W[eirich]

@hglundahl are you using Google translate?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 No, I am not.

If you are at the bar, you should be better familiar with literary turns in your language.

You seem to get my answers sufficiently well to give answers according to your ability, except for the last one. You cannot pretend I'm incomprehensible to you.

But for some reason, the last answer got erased, so, here it is again:

"You can't eliminate major claims such as how we date things without destroy other fundamental laws about how chemistry and physics works"

Good talking point, but major leaps in the logic.

I am not denying how Potassium Argon is done, I am pointing out the Flood waters chilling the lava would trap extra argon and make the reading older.

I am not denying how Carbon 14 dating is done, I am offering a calibration based on the Bible rather than tree rings.

"start proposing wildly different starting conditions"

How is rapid cooling of lava or rapidish build up of Carbon 14 "wildly differring"?

"Another example is how long it takes for starlight to reach us,"

Probably the two way speed of light gives a very good clue about the one way speed of light. If stars are no further away than 1 light day, that's no problem for YEC.

I notice you didn't take me up on language, but human language in every instance of vocal language has three levels.

• phonemes meaningless by themselves
• morphemes made from phonemes, usually more than one, in a strict sequence, and each morpheme having a partial meaning, like a subject or a predicate or sth
• phrase, made from morphemes, like a subject a copula and a predicate, giving a complete message.

No beast has this kind of three level approach to communication. How would you account for the transition? Try sounding a bit smart, will you!

And complaining about my mastery of English won't do it.

Jonathan W[eirich]

@hglundahl at the bar? What? Also it's "terms"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 At the bar:
"Jonathan Weirich - Oral Argument - Florida Second District Court of Appeal"
turns / terms => not the same, I chose turns for a reason.

Where was your response to the argument?

Jonathan W[eirich]

@hglundahl you are offering calibration on the bible and not tree rings? What on earth does that even mean? Are you seriously suggesting that our understanding of physics and chemistry has to be grounded in age bounds set by YOUR interpretation of the bible? Has anyone successfully formulated a system where this would actually work? I doubt it, and I have never seen any scientist propose such an alternate theory that would actually work

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jonathanw1106 "Are you seriously suggesting that our understanding of physics and chemistry"

FYI, while tree rings contain lignine, their sufficiency in frequency and size of samples when you go beyond 3000 years back is not a primary of physics or chemistry.

"What on earth does that even mean?"

I'll give you my most certain example. Genesis 14. Since this is between Abraham's 75 and 86 years, posit he's 80. Whatever year BC you put his birth (Roman Martyrology for Christmas day has 2015), that's 80 years before Genesis 14 (giving 1935 BC for the chapter).

It contains the Amorrhites of Asason-Tamar, which we know from II Chronicles is En Geddi. The most recent level of En Geddi it can belong to is dated 3500 BC.

3500 - 1935 = 1565 extra years => implies a carbon 14 level that's 82.753 pmC.

"Has anyone successfully formulated a system where this would actually work?"

I think I have done so. Check it out on "New Tables" (there are updates to it) on "Creation vs. Evolution"

"I have never seen any scientist propose such an alternate theory that would actually work"

I'm not an actual scientist, feel free to present my work to them!

Btw, it starts in the year of the Flood, dated 39 000 BP.

It ends in Fall of Troy, carbon date coinciding with real date.

[I refer to this series : Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts]

Bible and Geocentrism

Bible and Geocentrism · Jimmy Akin Up to Tycho Brahe

DEBUNKING Geocentrist Bible Verses
Jimmy Akin | 29 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofrMEpo70Qw

3:18 Here is my first objection.

You have cited "science" painting the Sun as an object with neither conscious agency in itself nor attached to it, subject to only inertial prolongation of a movement already commenced, and graviational "acceleration" (including decelerations and changes of direction°

You have then written off the description in the psalm as poetic because it does NOT describe the Sun in such lifeless terms, but in terms of a personal, vaguely male character.

Have you checked out that:

• St. Thomas considered each heavenly body was moved by an angelic mover
• Riccioli concurred (though differring much on detail from St. Thomas on other items)
• so, this has not been refuted. Astronomers proceed to reason as if this idea could have no impact on reality, i e as if it is a false idea. An idea that accurately describes a reality, is obviously an idea that describes sth that can impact reality. And the angelic movers have not been refuted by some counterproof. They have just been ignored.

3:36 Your question in its wording presumes the mechanical account would be scientific, presumably accurate, and that deviating from the mechanical account would be non-scientific, therefore presumably inaccurate.

3:58 I would say the language is far more literal than you give it credit for.

The praise is undoubted. I just think it sticks far closer to actual facts about the sun. Whether it refers to the daily motion as Riccioli would say, or the annual motion, as St. Thomas would say, both would argue, angelic beings are very properly compared to athletes, like the guardian angel who lifted a wheel which was running over a child, so the child survived unhurt, so an angelic being is any day of the week very comparable to an athlete. Now, if the scientists are correct that the Sun is very heavy, the angel of the Sun would be a very great athlete on this comparison.

In Daniel 3, we Catholics have and the Protestants do not have the actual song of the three young men.

62 O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 63 O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

This, both St. Thomas and Riccioli would consider as on the most literal level (not denying there are others) referring to the angelic movers of celestial bodies.

Now, before sun and moon, the three young men have already mentioned angels in verse 58 and powers in verse 61. Now check these verses:

85 O ye servants of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 86 O ye spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Servants would clearly include angelic beings. When beasts are mentioned, let's be clear that they have some kind of angels attached to them too, probably most usually not one per individual though, more like one per herd.

One could even argue in verse 86 that "souls of the just" are the reference to human spirits, while "spirits" refers to angelic beings.

In other words, Daniel 3 is stating that Sun and Moon are part of the angelic entities, if not bodies of angelic beings, relating to these as my face relates to me, at least bodies moved by angelic beings, relating to them as my keyboard relates to me (when I borrow one).

What Animism holds to be true about visible things on earth has not been per se condemned as false. Where animists go wrong is in worshipping for instance the spirit of a stone you happen to like (or even dislike) as the Japanese and the Lapps do. But telling the stone (meaning it's spirit, if it has one) to worship God would presumably be fine.

6:31 I note, you have not gotten into whether the book of Joshua gives a historically accurate picture of what happened on Joshua's long day, specifically what led up to it. Joshua chapter 10.

You want to explain verse 13 with "phenomenological language" ... well, falls afoul of the backreference in Habaccuc, seems awkward in relation to the other miracle in the time of Isaias and Hezechias, but one might ignore those and say your view could pass.

Now go back to verse 12. We do not have phenomenological language, because we do not have description. We have Joshua's miracle working prescription. Joshua first prayed to God, in words that are not given, and then, inspired by God, adressed himself to Sun and Moon. Those, not Earth, was what he told to cease their rotation.

Note, I am very much harping on the fact, the words adressed to Sun and Moon were not his prayer to God. If Joshua had simply asked "God, let the Sun and Moon stand still" and it had stood still, well, you could be welcome to say God had made an allowance for Joshua's ignorance and changed the behaviour of what would really need to change behaviour, namely the rotation of Earth.

BUT, this is not simply what Joshua asked God. The actual words of Joshua in verse 12 are not his prayer, they are his miracle working words.

If you can pretend that a miracle working word could involve some kind of error shared by the contemporaries, you could equally pretend that Jesus' words to demons were in reality without a real object and what Jesus really performed was sudden healings of perfectly intrapsychic or sometimes intrabrain conditions. Now, that is a route which some Lutherans in Sweden, in the late 19th C. took. An evil route. I do not want to share in it.

I think the safest or perhaps the only logically stringent way of avoiding it is, Joshua's words also did not involve any kind of error about what it is that moves each day. Or at least, not the kind of error a Heliocentric would say.

If Joshua had a kind of Riccioli view (the Sun's movement across the sky is the Sun's movement, performed by an angel) and the reality is more like a Thomasic view (the Sun's movement is a composite, God moves the heavens westward each day, and the Sun also moves a 1/365 to the East each day, by his own movement), there would be two entities per heavenly body obeying Joshua, and God would be one of them, verse 14, while the Sun's angel and the Moon's angel would be the other, as in Habaccuc.

"as 6:49 Cardinal Caesar baronius said back 6:51 during the Galileo controversy the Bible 6:54 teaches us how to go to heaven not how 6:58 the heavens go"

Now, did Caesar Baronius say so when getting involved in the controversy?

Or did Galileo say so, and Baronius simply cite him?

You might want to check out his lifespan.

Cesare Baronio, C.O. (as an author also known as Caesar Baronius; 30 August 1538 – 30 June 1607)

Galileo was in controversy twice. 1616 and 1633. On both occasions, Cesare Baronio was already dead. I think you have promoted a canard.

"the Bible 6:54 teaches us how to go to heaven"

Which presumes there is a heaven to go to.

Where is it?

If Geocentrism is true, fix stars could be no further up than 1 light day.

In that case, heavenly Jerusalem is arguably the coordinates of earthly Jerusalem, but 1 light day further up, plus some.

It is a real physical place, it is above the stars we see, and if we get there (where Satan can't get, though he had liked to) we can look down on the stars.

But if Heliocentrism is true, with lots of other modern cosmology, where is it?

If earth rotates, the coordinates of earthly Jerusalem are not much help, at least not East / West, and the next question is, is heaven 13.8 billion light years away, or is it a kind of spaceship, surrounded by stars on all sides? Or is it a parallel universe? Or is it non-physical?

The last of these is clearly totally off limits for a Catholic, since two risen bodies are there, Our Lord and Our Lady.

Nope, Tolkien was not a warlock (nor a promoter of them)

How to Convince a Christian that Lord of the Rings Isn’t Full of Forbidden Witchcraft
Tolkien Lore | 29 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olLVvspENVE

I think I am dealing, in large part with people who do need to take this into account.

Not sure they will.

I'm probably also dealing with people who pretend I'm delusional because I'm a Creationist, AronRa will consider that as "Harry Potter" and me reading Tolkien will confirm that suspicion, and some people who are "Catholic" but way friendlier with Putin than with Kent Hovind, which is backward, will definitely push this among Christians who ought to support me.

Thousand thanks for taking the trouble!

Recently I basically had to motivate how his conlangs are not glossolalia, which could be a sign of demonic possession.

Tolkien Lore

@TolkienLorePodcast

Why is speaking in tongues the most misunderstood gift of the Holy Spirit?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@TolkienLorePodcast Also a good question.

0:42 Already intrigued.

I was actually warned against Harry Potter by a Catholic priest or bishop (if the latter it was Mgr Williamson) who stated that JRRT and CSL are OK, while he had asked exorcists that some stuff in HP is too realistic (could be used as kind of a manual).

Chociewitka Odola

@Chociewitka

You mean some occult sources are copied too verbatim in it, as as Rowling did not believe in magic, she was not bothered enough to get it distorted enough not to be repeatable? Then again the Grimm tales do contain some ancient spells too - but maybe without the details how to perform them...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chociewitka The guy whom I read back in the 90's claimed an exorcist had claimed the general spirit of some of the especially curses was too realistic, and could at least get someone part of the way to performing black magic.

Not sure what part of Grimm would be doing that.

Titus Castiglione

@TitusCastiglione1503

@hglundahl I’d want more proof of that claim from that priest before I’d believe it.

Chociewitka Odola

@hglundahl well there were some part of the so called "Folk-belief" in the Grimm tales there, but only parts, one could not really reconstruct the whole... But the magic the evil queens perform do often involve rudimental description of spells and rituals, e.g. blood spells

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TitusCastiglione1503 Look it up in Mitteilungsblatt der Priesterbruderschaft Sankt Pius X some time from 1996 or 1997 and trace him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chociewitka "do often involve rudimental description of spells"

Very rudimentary, I think before the tales came across the collectors, I suppose either priests would have told the guys what parts they couldn't tell, or they would have omitted things on gut feeling, in the cases there was some real life background in spells.

Compared to that, the scene before Moria gates is simply trying to recall or reconstruct a password ...

5:08 St. Thomas Aquinas is fairly clear, angels do have power over matter, not internal structure, that's God's domain, but movements and that would involve those that would light a fire.

The problem with this route is that this type of Evangelicals is usually not very open to St. Thomas Aquinas either. A Fundie who is, like Jonathan Sarfati, isn't likely to be this level of anti-Catholic or anti-Tolkien.

8:47 Necromancy is not just any communication with the dead.

If we go to the Greek, necros + manteia suggests soothsaying by means of that dead. That is certainly forbidden.

Neither the actual direct wording in (I think Leviticus, anyway in) the books of Moses, nor the Catholic interpretation thereof will buy that Maria Simma was committing necromancy, when asking a soul from Purgatory what he or she needed (the answer was three Masses).

11:55 Intercepting here.

The problem with this argument is, a Wiccan, at least fairly early on, would normally consider she is doing white magic, and avoiding and shunning everything that's black magic.

And obviously, there are stories from ex-Wiccans who came to see that this subtlety was deceptive. White magic is as forbidden and hateful to God as black magic, because either way "you tap into the spiritual realm" (as they would say) in a way not authorised by God.

Now, Catholic moral theology would basically agree. It's not the same degree of mortal sin, but it is still mortally sinful. And the interesting thing is that Tolkien speculated that this is some type of rule that did not always belong to the natural law.

For instance, not marrying siblings very certainly does belong to the natural law now, and as certainly did not belong to the natural law when Cain and Seth each married their sister and so on for other sons of Adam and Eve, except if some married nieces instead. To Tolkien and to CSL, see That Hideous Strength, there is a similar thing about magic : it has become more dangerous to the soul and therefore less close to licit or nearly licit. It is now completely illicit, but previously wasn't so.

Tolkien could have stated that Jacob did what amounted to magic on the instruction of God, when it came to the colouring of offspring. However, the Catholic commentator would state that "it was not the sin of magic because God instructed" — and Tolkien would presumably reply, if God so instructed, it was because similar things in magic were not as sinful back then.

Obviously, Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings are set thousands of years before Jacob.

Plus Tolkien could speculate that for unfallen man (to which Eldar are kind of a parallel, since not all of elvenkind fell in diverse ways, not all were Avari, not all followed Feanor etc) it would have been far less dangerous and therefore licit.

Or, other possibility, events leaving traces in the "atmosphere" of a non-physical type, or words having an impact on the "atmosphere" and from there on the physical, Tolkien could have speculated those things were actually real, but not accessible to fallen man, so a fallen man who thinks he's using that could only do so by demonic help, which would then not apply to elves or angelic beings.

IndianaBones

@rikk319

The thing is, Gandalf as a maia (angel) was not a human being, so did the prescriptions in Leviticus apply to him as a direct representative of Eru (God)? Anything Gandalf did that could be considered "magic" was most likely done through divine will or as a direct servant of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@rikk319 I'd agree this was Tolkien's vision about Gandalf.

I was referring to the distinction "white" and "black" magic. Not specifically to Gandalf.

14:21 Not sure if it is really possible to prolong one's life with dark magic.

Unless heart transplants count as such.

In the Yngling dynasty (descending from Odin, an actual necromancer, pretending himself to be one of three creator gods) one man prolongs his life for ten lifespans by killing successive sons to prolong his own life by human sacrifice (to his stepancestor Odin). Or, tenth time over, if it was not eleventh, his Swedish subjects have enough of it, sacrifice him to Odin and hail his son as a king. That kind of behaviour is one indication to me, that line started in some very dark way. Like a real man falsely passing himself off as a god, or sth.

However, technically, I think this would have been impossible, unless demons got a chance to perform heart transplant each time.

15:27 "just writing a fun story for his kids"

True about The Hobbit, not true about Lord of the Rings. When it comes to Gandalf, ultimately, I think he owes lots to St. Raphael in the Book of Tobit.

Which obviously, some Evangelicals would think that makes it even worse.

Tolkien Lore

Wasn’t I specifically referring to The Hobbit when I said that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TolkienLorePodcast You are right, at 15:01 / 15:03 you were.

My bad. A weakness of mine when listening.

Tolkien Lore

@hglundahl that’s ok, when I was editing I realized I forgot to even complete my thought about JK Rowling

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TolkienLorePodcast well, happens, but less often when one is writing and by default edits before publication, because one does the html for line breaks manually.

16:48 "dragons, trolls"

Dinosaurs, nephelim.

Edward Weaver

@edwardweaver6869

A lot of modern historians believe humans have been digging up Dinosaur bones for a long time; we just kind of misinterpreted them as weird stuff like dragons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@edwardweaver6869 I've noticed.

The problem is, lots of traditions involve meeting such critters live, rather than just finding bones of them.

Dating dinos to "65 000 000 years ago" is reconstruction, taking dragons as things we have met in a not too far off past is tradition.

I generally prefer tradition over reconstruction.

19:20 Depends on which season.

By now there are seasons of Star Trek where characters have spiritual symbiotes, which sounds really like "familiar spirit" ....

The discussion is kind of interesting.

When I was in my heighday writing a fan fiction involving both CSL and JRRT characters, I concluded, The Lost Road can't involve true time travel to real past times because it contradicts Biblical history (JRRT was obviously alive at a point when Catholic clergy in the West started getting too loose on this one), but God creating Narnia is fine, since pretending He couldn't would go against the condemnation of thesis 34 in Bishop Tempier's Syllabus.

However, since then there is a problem with Narnia too.

Not with reading, since I can't deny both works have helped to deepen my faith, and keep me in the faith, but in writing on same premisses.

To CSL, Aslan is a "parallel incarnation" of God the Son, in another universe. The problem is stating there could be another universe for which the Incarnation in Nazareth / Bethlehem weren't valid.

That's not all. I tried to get around that by pushing instead the narrative that in the world of Narnia, Jesus, in a human body, is present under the accidents of the body of a talking lion. Catholic theology, no problem. The problem is, this approach contradicts the words in CSL's actual books, most notably the dialogue between Aslan and Bree in HHB. So, I got stuck.

19:30 Some people would argue, if you ever meet an elf or an alien, you are automatically, 100 % sure, dealing with a demon.

20:06 The witch craze is not Medieval.

If you could take an i-phone to 1300 and to 1500, but you wanted to know which one was safer, 1300 is the bet.

Titus Castiglione

Yeah the height of witchhuntjng is far more Early Modern than anything medieval.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TitusCastiglione1503 Plus, the beginning is Late Medieval.

I think there was a gruesome aftermath of sudden cold and bad harvest in which some resorted to cannibalism and witch craft in the 1310's and then the story stuck even after the crimes had ceased or sth.

"Great Famine of 1315–1317: A famine and pestilence sweeps over Europe, and exacts so frightful a toll of human life that the phenomenon is to be regarded as one of the most impressive features of the period. It covers almost the whole of Northern Europe; the current territory of Ireland, England, France, Netherlands, Germany and Poland. The adverse weather conditions, the ensuing crop failures, and the sharp rise in food prices cause an acute shortage of food that will last for two years. The famine causes millions of deaths (according to estimates, around 10 to 25% of the urban population dies)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1315

26:26 "Without even paying attention to the Silmarillion."

Did you know some Russian Orthodox have tried to argue Tolkien's work is Gnostic, therefore heretic, because they looked at Ainulindale?

Now, the key point here is "creation by someone other than God" ...

That priest and Aquinas agree this could not happen. However, Aquinas would have said, if God granted me to create or shape creation in some way, this would still not be me creating, this would be God creating, because God was the one giving actual being to the thing I had thought up.

Here is the point, Tolkien absolutely does NOT violate that, good Thomist as he is.

But to some of those guys Tolkien and Aquinas are both offlimits.

Tolkien Lore

Some people just can’t be happy I guess lol.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TolkienLorePodcast Could be it.

Or leave others happy.

Sophie Jones

@sophiejones3554

True, though "this is heresy" and "this is witchcraft" are two distinct arguments. The Orthodox Church also has conceptions of witchcraft, which are different from Catholic-derived Western ideas of "witchcraft". Heresy is Christianity, but warped: witchcraft is "against Christianity" (according to people who are not me). The two things got somewhat conflated in Continental Europe because witch hunters used laws against heresy to condemn witches. However, in England they very much remained seperate as heresy was not illegal, and thus witches were accused of treason instead (because the King is head of the church, any practice condemned by the Church of England is treason: but incorrect belief is not punished, in general English law does not ever punish ideas or speech only actions).

I will say that a LOT of the Silm hate in Russia really has to do with politics, the theological arguments against it are mostly just excuses. You can pretty much make a theological argument against ANYTHING including the Bible itself. The Venn diagram of Russian pro-democracy advocates and Tolkiendil is just a circle. This is a connection that goes all the way back to the Soviet era: Tolkien was one of the few western writers that the Soviets liked, so Lord of the Rings was often used as a legitimate diguise for more subversive activity. A lot of the most famous artists who draw Silmarillion-themed work are Russian, and many of them are now in exile. So it's unsurprising that the church is now coming out with theological arguments against LotR.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@sophiejones3554 Thank you.

That was informative.

26:49 If Evangelicals make an accusation against Catholics, and Tolkien was one, count on some Orthodox to pick up the accusation with some decades' delay!

Recall the kind of "Trail of Blood" stuff that used to be mainstream with Protestants back when Book of Martyrs was an accepted Anglican reference?

Well, the Russian Orthodox have copied that one too. Read up on Peter the Aleut, if you are interested. Yes, they bona fide do consider him a martyr for the rejection of azymes.

Some Protestant considered Hochhuth's play really revealing? Serbs are all into promoting Avro Manhattan's take on Jasenovac, as sth Stepinac and Pius XII would have wanted.

So, Evangelicals making Tolkien a mouthpiece of Illuminati, who had asked them for permission if he could reveal the Runes, back when John Todd said so? Yes, you have Orthodox who pretend Ainulindale is Gnostic. A priest actually took down an essay on it, after I had refuted it, but I can't pretend to be sure all laymen or clergy outside that online publication have bought it.

When the True God Revealed Himself (sharing)

Licoricia of Winchester, Interest, Blood Libel · Look at This · Palestinian Origins · Christ is King of the Jews · Whaddo You Meme ?? Tried to Give His POV on Christ is King · Colin (Not a Pastor) on Fight For Truth Had a Better Take · Sharing : Isabel Brown · Some Responses to Candida Moss (Beginning of Video) · Christ is King of the Jews, even if Tovia Refuses to See That · Tovia tried to counter ... · When the True God Revealed Himself (sharing) · Tovia Singer Fails to Discredit the Gospels · Sharing on the Trinity in the OT

Why Jesus Had to Come 2000 Years Ago...Not Today!
Julian Gentry | 26 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfnQqdYuFzI

[Just to clarify on his last words, and my relation to them. I do not believe Christians are absolutely always called to complete pacifism. I do not think I am called as a private citizen to avenge God's honour on apostates in violent ways, but if apostates target me with psychiatry and stuff, I do believe I have a right to self defense./HGL]

London Storm Pretends to be at least remotely serious (about the Flood) — Roughly First Half of Video

Will This Change Your Mind About Noah's Ark?
London Storm | 18 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDGKLt5BPrg

2:18 There is a huge difference between abusing one's free will like Cain did in a one time (hopefully) fratricide, and misusing it like some collectives were arguably doing just before the Flood.

Meaning, they were arguably making everyone who still believed what Adam and Eve had believed about how to live your life miserable. Engaging or requiring their goons to engage in cannibalism to get ready for that task.

Harmageddon is not about someone taking the mark simply abusing his free will to do the wrong thing. It's about those having taken the mark banding together to make life miserable (and short) for Christians. The Flood and that Battle are essentially not very different. In each case, there is a judgement on persecutors.

2:50 "a fantastical story, and not in a good way"

I guess you threw your example of Silmarillion out when you had read Akallabêth?

3:48 Like the drowning of Númenor kind of did involve babies drowning.

But it stopped getting the faithful killed in human sacrifice along perhaps some other unlucky ones.

6:31 Who said Noah had to collect animals across the world?

Maybe the Nodian civilisation had a zoo nearby (well, relatively, the Ark project was probably only tolerated because it was in an isolated spot, on the then highest mountain) and Noah is able to buy lots from there, if it wasn't where he was around.

6:42 "all the animals I have seen in one very small place"

The point of dismissing the bathtub ark is, the Ark wasn't small. I have seen LOTS of dogs, and I think there was exactly one couple of dogs or maybe overall canids on the Ark. Lots of hedgehogs, there was one couple of hedgehogs (and since hedgehogs aren't now one species, but 17, this is accurate). So, it would definitely not be all the animals I had seen either.

7:06 The highest peak back then was NOT Mount Everest, that's post-Flood. 30 000 feet is pretty accurate on Mount Everest, but is definitely way beyond any peak in the pre-Flood world.

7:33 AND it nowhere says all the water came from rain.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: 12 And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

I find it pretty convincing that, as modern YEC have suggested:

subterranean water reservoirs were opened up and the water started to fill things

but at the same time the breaking up involved LOADS of eruptions

so lots of water goes up into the air and then down again, and this is the process that involves 40 days and 40 nights.

So, the rain didn't create the height that was reached, and that height was not Mount Everest either.

7:44 If you have trouble surviving at air plane height, it's not because of the absolute height above the centre of our globe, it's because most of the air is below that height. If water were "that high" (actually less, as Mt Everest is post-Flood) it would squeeze the air up, so there is not that problem.

7:49 Mariana Trench and other depths of the oceans we have in our post-Flood world is where the water went. Seas were also shallower in the pre-Flood world.

8:01 No, you have been very inattentive at what they actually offer. Lots of what I answered you would come from them or CMI. It's you who prefer a medium level of realism, like when you can invent problems and ignore answers to them.

London Storm

@danger.snakes

this is some high level cope

the flood is a myth and no remotely serious person believes it happened

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@danger.snakes Oh, I thought you were into argument, your video made me believe that.

Is calling me "no remotely serious person" supposed to be your version of an ad hominem?

👑 2pacaveli 👑

@2pacaveli257

[triple laughter to tears emotica]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Do you have any arguments, or just a mood of laughter?

8:46 You are forgetting that it was not a ship, was not meant to navigate, so could have very thick wood, was all the time (except the last part near the landing place) on very deep water and not risking the chaos of coastal waves, so, no, again you play on words rather than verify what they mean.

On hyperrealism, I grade you C.

9:02 Is that a challenge to displace the Ark encounter into the Pacific?

9:33 What's YOUR criterium for historical proof?

I did not come across a single bit of a history centred video on your list.

If you don't know what geometrical proof is like, I might not prove Pythagoras' theorem to you.

If you blurt "that's just an allegation" like a bad math pupil would say "that's just a diagramme" ....

10:50 430 feet for Wyoming is close to 450 feet for Ark, yes.

10:58 I think your objection is based on unwitting or wilful ignorance of baraminology.

11:22 Whatever you were going to compare it to, nothing here is "conspiracy theories" any more than Dark Matter is. A complication in a theory and taking it into account does not make it a theory born from paranoid suspicions against some outgroupers.

11:26 "there is no real evidence for the things we believe"
a) would not constitute a conspiracy theory, even if it is part of it;
b) is anyway only your strawman.

11:43 You sound very much like some of us Geocentrics when we comment on mainstream astrologers, pardon, astronomers, who now believe in Dark Matter.

12:54 Did you never yet hear this objection to us?

Wyoming (schooner) is on wikipedia. Here is a history in bullet points:

1909 – 15 December. Launched at the Percy and Small Shipyard with its masts stepped. First master: Captain Angus McLeod of Somerville, Massachusetts.[1]
1909 – 21 December. Maiden voyage to Newport News, Virginia[6]
1916 – In charter of International Paper Company
1917 – April. Sold to France & Canada Steamship Co. for about $350,000 (probably about $420,000). By 1 October 1919, it had earned more than twice that amount, and its owners chartered it to load coal at Norfolk for Genoa at $23.50 per ton.
1921 – Sold to Captain A. W. Frost & Co., Portland, Maine.
1924 – Left Norfolk, Virginia, under command of Captain Charles Glaesel, for Saint John, New Brunswick, with a cargo of coal.
1924 – 11 March. In order to ride out a nor'easter, it anchored off Chatham, Massachusetts, in the Nantucket Sound, together with the five-masted schooner Cora F. Cressey which had left Norfolk at the same time as Wyoming. Captain H. Publicover on the Cora F. Cressey weighed anchor at dusk and stood out to sea. Wyoming is believed to have foundered east of the Pollock Rip Lightship and the crew of 14 was lost.[7][8][9]
2003 - Wyoming wreck located near Monomoy Island by American Underwater Search and Survey Ltd.[10][11]

Let's check depth as well:
Pollock Rip Shoal (also on wiki)

The channel at Pollock Rip Shoals is centered about three miles (4.8 km) east of the southerly end of Monomoy Island in Chatham, Massachusetts.[1] The channel, which runs east–west, is about eight miles (13 km) south of the Chatham Lighthouse.[1] Vessels passing around the Cape Cod coastline use the channel as a passage from the Atlantic Ocean to Nantucket Sound.[1] The Pollock Rip Lightship marked the eastern approach to the channel from 1849 to 1969; it has since been replaced by a lighted buoy. The Stonehorse Lightship had previously identified the southeasterly end of the channel until October 1963, when it was removed by the U.S. Coast Guard and replaced with a small buoy.[1] The channel extends six miles (9.7 km) through the shoals and is 30 feet (9.1 m) deep and 2,000 feet (610 m) wide. It was completed in 1925.[1]

"The channel extends six miles (9.7 km) through the shoals and is 30 feet (9.1 m) deep"

So, the seas that made Wyoming flounder were arguably even less than 9.1 m deep!

That makes the sea more turbulent.

12:58 Check out 1 October 1919, after the sales statement from 1917, April.

13:06 There was only one voyage for the Ark.

As it was not a ship, did not navigate against the waves, it could have thicker wood. Hence, and through the added pitch, no leaks to pump either. Plus there probably was some kind of pump system on the Ark anyway.

You mentioned "Noah's people" ... we don't know much about them. Those whom he was born among, that is. If my model for carbon dates is correct, the Flood was followed by Gravettian, Solutrean, Magdalenian within the remaining lifespan of Noah. For pre-Flood men, we have traces of what could be savages, but we have not found the civilisation. A bit like finding the teepee of Chingachgook, but _not_ the palaces of the Hanoveran dynasty or their nearby London. Because the civilisation was what God targetted most, as that was where most of the Totalitarian and Inhuman Corruption was.

13:15 Before you speak of lower decks, as if it were a ship, how about checking the Bible for the actual shape of the Ark?

9:33 to 13:15 I note, you quickly shifted the subject from historicity as per historic criteria to possibility as per technical, for instance naval ones.

13:32 It was the Wyoming. If you tried to look up the Maine, you would not have found the relevant information.

However, Wyoming actually was built in precisely Maine.

13:47 The weight is actually an asset, since it augments the rolling period. And the longer the rolling period, the less likely a vessel is to roll upside down, so called capsizing.

Now, since a water line halfway up the vessel is pretty common, the Biblical dimensions, that waterline, would tell you the displacement and weight.

300 * 50 * 30 * 1.5³ / 2 = 759 375 ft³= 21 503.11 m³ => 21 503.11 metric tonnes.

I actually went with a longer cubit measure, probably two feet, when I calculated the rolling period, it was in my calculation "between 11.71 and 12.82 seconds."

I quoted this sentence:

A passenger ship will typically have a long rolling period for comfort, perhaps 12 seconds while a tanker or freighter might have a rolling period of 6 to 8 seconds.

15:35 How about explaining how the Altai mountains could have been flooded?

15:45 Yes, it actually has some relevance for the chances of the Ark, that event in 2004!

There was a boy on a wooden bed. He didn't get into the shore where he would have been smashed, he got out on deep water. And out there, tsunami waves are not damaging. They are hardly noticable.

MIRACLE OF THE LITTLE BOY LOST & FOUND
By Social Links for Leonard Greene
Published Dec. 29, 2004, 5:00 a.m. ET
https://nypost.com/2004/12/29/miracle-of-the-little-boy-lost-found/

16:39 Genesis 6 — an Ark that can float in a global Flood.
Gilgamesh tablet XI — a "giant coracle" that absolutely couldn't do that.

IF there is a genuine account, it makes sense if it is more realistic than the ones that get garbled.

If there ISN'T why would the rehash be more realistic?

Adam, Eve, and Early Humans (amp; More Weird Questions) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World — I listened and commented

Adam, Eve, and Early Humans (amp; More Weird Questions) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World — I listened and commented · Protestants Don't Have the Council of Trent to Guide Them

Adam, Eve, and Early Humans (amp; More Weird Questions) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
Jimmy Akin | 26 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5b9yu5wGLM

I can't afford to miss this one.

Last year, I heard some views about Theistic Evolution, and I possibly misconstrued as Jimmy Akin's own position what may not have been so. If so, I was inattentive, and I'll try to make up for it this time

4:43 Non-corporeal.

This would c. 70 years ago have been defended like "all four theological schools have by now agreed internally and with each other" (I think that means Thomistic Dominicans, Scotistic Franciscans, Jesuits and Augustinians) "that angels are entirely immaterial."

However, this leaves out orientals.

In some Oriental source, you'll find "angels are incorporeal compared to us, corporeal compared to God" ...

Or in other words, we don't experience them as material, but God knows they are material.

I think that could be St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox faith, not sure if there is maybe even a Council statement on the Ecumenical Councils I through VIII (somewhere in Nicaea I through Constantinople IV, whichever of the two meetings about Photius you consider ecumenical, or both).

5:27 This argument for Dark Matter is pretty moot.

a) Because the distances, sizes and consequently gravity factors of "galaxies" or spiral nebulas are moot, as derived from Heliocentric error. "Proven" from an unproven counterfact.
b) Because the idea that objects of this scale of size are moved only by vectors of inertia and gravity, both of which are dominated by mass, is part of their proof, it's neither proven, nor a first principle evident in itself, except it will be perceived like that to Atheists.

So, when the matter astronomers think is there won't explain movements as observed, instead of revising that assumption (and in doing so reverting to Geocentrism as per observations), they will add another layer of complexity to their theories by invoking dark matter.

"there may be a hidden substance hidden which is why it's called Dark 5:38 there may be a hidden form of matter or a dark form of matter that doesn't interact with light which is why we 5:46 can't see it because light just goes right through it um but does interact 5:52 gravitationally so it would have mass that's capable of influencing the visible matter that we can see"

Angels, angelic beings:
1) do not show visually (except by taking bodily form, which is a capacity but not a default state, this is by the way distinct from whether they are or aren't normally in some way corporeal)
2) do not need mass, but have will, to interact with any given body they chose to interact with, either on God's errand or with God's permission.

That's sufficient to motivate not just funny patterns of rotations on spiral nebulas (by some the last 100 years thought to be "galaxies"), but even Tychonian orbits. Actual spirograph patterns in relation to a space that rotates around earth each day.

It can be admitted, my own view also involves some kind of invisible matter, which I call aether.

It's not just the medium of light, but also of spatiality. Both physical vectors and angelic action would move bodies within this larger space, and down to earth, so does standing on the ground or humanly deciding to move a finger.

If I stood on the equator and dropped a stone having had no speed at all in relation to the aether, it would fly westward real fast. But this can't happen, unless I create the stone the moment I drop it, which I can't. While I hold it, it already acquires an eastward speed through the aether.

That's also why geostationary satellites work, the speed that's relevant for keeping them up is not in relation to absolute space or to earth, but in relation to the rotating aether.

That's also why Sirius can move around the Earth 2 pi the speed of light, if fix stars are one light day up. The speed of light is concerned with movement through the aether.

The speed of Sirius we observe is mainly speed of the aether, which at that height has that speed.

I would say, if angels are made of some kind of matter, it would be aether rather than particles.

8:27 For spirits known to be damned, like Satan, one Church father did pray, and he got pushback for it.

I think it was St. Basil.

For people who in fact are in Hell, but we don't know it, yes, one may pray.

It might cause temporary relief, it might be a prayer (specifically in the case of indulgenced prayers) that God uses for someone else, like a soul in Purgatory.

12:16 Do you think there are situations when an act against the faith on part of someone (not received into the Church) can be determined as either apostasy or part of a martyrdom, so that the person either went to Hell or to Heaven?

My mother's getting buried by a Lutheran seemed to me, last year, to fall within this range. She had prayed the rosary with me before I left Sweden.

I believe in Purgatory. I do not believe mother went there. Just as I don't believe Sr. Clare Crockett went there. With the latter, even though she accepted a wrong Pope, I do not envisage her as even optionally gone to Hell.

So, if upcoming 6.VI you think I am wrong, you can pray for my mother in Purgatory. But first try to pray to her. If she doesn't cure someone's bad cold or sth, you may proceed to pray for her.

14:58 The words do not amount to actual proof of exasperation.

She could have wanted to have a clarification, like She asked of the angel.

15:35 Consternation is far more like it.

She probably experienced lots of consternation until the parallel to Genesis 3:15 told her that Her Sisera or Holophernes was not a man of flesh and blood, but the author of sin.

Like Patrick Madrid said somewhere, the only OT parallels to the greeting "blessed among women" (in the OT there are qualifications, so less absolute than the words to Mary), were Jael and Judith.

So, since their heroism was about getting someone's throat cut, I think She was on and off consterned up to getting clarification by St. Elisabeth on what it meant.

17:17 Why would "selfish" be sinful?

Kant introduced the equation altruism = virtue, egoism / selfishness = sin.

This is followed in lots of modern Protestant moral theology, a k a heretical morality.

In the NIV, there are at least 8 items condemning selfishness. In the Douay Rheims, each is condemning something else.

And no, "lovers of self" does not equate with selfish, it's probably more like lovers of self at systematic expense of others or infatuated with self.

What I found is:

What does the word mean, in everyday language? It means for "contend" to quarrel or dispute, and for contentions "quarrels" or for contention "being quarrelsome" - so the verdict of those verses is, not about selfishness, but about quarrelsomeness. While we sometimes do need to quarrel for a good cause (Jude 1:3, or David taking up a quarrel with Goliath), we are forbidden to be quarrelsome, to be eager to find something to quarrel about.

Another word is "covetuousness" - it means one thing classified as "selfish" by those using the word, but not everything else so classified. It means specifically being greedy.

somewhere else: Is Selfishness Condemned in the Bible?
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 05:09 dimanche 29 janvier 2023
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2023/01/is-selfishness-condemned-in-bible.html

23:42 You are aware how the long neck of the giraffe could never have developed from shorter necks gradually, because it involves safety valves in the blood vessels. Are you?

24:45 You are aware that a gradual emergence of a new cell type in any living organism type has never been observed?

Another major hurdle for the theory of evolution!

25:55 Wonder how many of my persecutors round here in Paris are involved in Pavlovian manipulation.

There are several occasions when I took some kind of contact with some kind of right wing thing (for instance Rivarol, last occasion, yesterday, I contacted Jean des Cars via his daughter, that's a man claiming Russia (rather than Ukraine) being founded in 882, in the intro to his book on the Romanovs.

I obviously thought he had been dupe of some Russian nationalists who were far better qualified to talk of Romanovs than of Kievan Rus', so I wrote about it, contacted his daughter who directs the Louvre. When I came to my luggage yesterday afternoon or evening, I saw someone had burrowed in it, making an ugly disorder.

Not totally sure if it comes from lefties who are mad I even get in touch with righties, or from righties who get mad, I am not their naive admirer. I tend to begin suspecting the latter.

27:54 A predisposition to alcoholism is not a disordered desire.

One can speak of disordered desire once a person who has developed alcoholism starts taking a sip intending to take no more, and ends up getting drunk.

By the way, if you have heard this is my case, that is a lie. If I have any disordered desire that strong, it's to food or rest. I have trouble staying away from a treat that's offered, even if I know it's beyond my allowed meals on a fasting day.

On Good Friday evening and Holy Saturday morning, I got into trouble by refusing meals offered despite this, and in order to not sin in food, I was a bit impatient in rejecting an offer from someone. That happened the evening. The morning I was woke up by someone poking in my luggage behind my sleeping bag. I tried to shove him away, got kicked down, got kicked on the head while down, had a brain concussion for one month. Police wrote it off as my getting into a drunk brawl because I was drunk.

Perhaps they protected someone. After the event, it struck me, he had some resemblance to Zelensky.

Well, I was not drunk.

28:52 I'd reject that one.

Adam was not created in grace, he was given grace, according to some, but even before grace he was in an original innocense which superpassed anything we have now.

Even if this is not true, on reflection I think it isn't, the abstract idea of it, what Adam before the fall would have been without grace, would still be far superior to us.

29:48 I'd go with this one rather.

a) making synthesis of vitamin C a pseudo-gene would be one thing hastening our death
b) and this would need some compensation, a drive to eat more fruit
c) and other biological signals of a more urgent situation.

When desires are to be expressed under a stress of urgency, they are more likely to become disordered in their expression.

But there is also a metaphysical loss, the interaction between (immaterial or aethereal) soul and body was re-geared to body less obedient to soul.

45:04 Perhaps, if you are prepared to deny the humanity of Neanderthals, maybe you shouldn't pray for my mother.

Nor a priest agreeing with you.

Neanderthals, not just made jewelry and buried dead, they kept a one armed man alive whose amputation had time to heal (Shanidar), they invented very roundabout glues to attach spear heads to shafts, they burned fat with wicks in bones to light dark caves, if they were already caves back then, we have their genes in vestigial amounts (also true for Denisovans), we would not descend from them if they didn't descend from Adam and Eve, and, even more.

Language.

They had our FOXP2 gene or a very similar version. They had Broca's area. They had human ears and human hyoid bones (Kebara), which have been worn in exactly the same way as that of a modern human wears his hyoid.

They were very clearly human.

One more. Dental calculus in El Sidrón reveals a vegetarian diet. Dental calculus in Belgium, also Neanderthals, reveals they ate woolly rhino and other men. Now, a split between vegetarians and cannibals suggest the pre-Flood world to me. Just vegetarians, see Genesis 9:2. Unjust into cannibalism and vampyrism, gay marriage and forced marriage, if I get the hint in Matthew 24:38 correct (some who were less close to the end times than we are have obviously held He meant ordinary food, drink, marriage arrangements).

Human language doesn't exist without the human soul. If some wacky theologian pretended it could back in the day of Pius XII, that could explain (along with non-condemnation in Humani Generis) the subsequent McCarrick-like scandals via a Romans 1 punishment. Plus all the disorders after Vatican II, whatever you believe of the Council. Plus the existence of four claimants to the papacy, I obviously think the one agreeing with you is for that reason the least likely.

You mentioned pushing Adam and Eve far back.

Not if there is something funny with the dating methods. Read this paragraph in context, you may find it instructive:

When it comes to radiometric dates, the carbon dates concern only Neanderthals and Denisovans, when it comes to Heidelbergians and Antecessors (whom I suspect of being simply Denisovans, but they are other finds and other dates) and to Homo erectus, we are more typically dealing with K-Ar, with Potassium Argon. In a Flood setting, how old would reflect how much argon was trapped by rapid cooling of lava spreading above the mud their bodies were in. For Neanderthals and Denisovans, where we have carbon dates, these end at or perhaps a bit before 40 000 BP. This is why for long I took the carbon date 40 000 BP or 38 000 BC as the carbon date of the Flood year.

Creation vs. Evolution : I Had a Dream : a Discussion About Human Skeleta
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 00:34 mardi 23 avril 2024
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/04/i-had-dream-discussion-about-human.html

Note, I said "if" ...

45:50 Pretending Denisovans and Neanderthals are not rational men, not descendants of Adam and Eve, brings on the evil suggestion we descend from what would, on the level of consensus, have amounted to Bestiality.

If the problem with accepting Neanderthals as human is, you prefer not putting Adam and Eve 40 000 years back, me neither. But the solution is not stating Homo sapiens is the only real human descendants of Adam, since you have Homo sapiens dated this far back or further. The solution is an extra look at the dating methods.

Where is Jeremy Sherman from?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates · Where is Jeremy Sherman from? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Jeremy Sherman PhD

Q, A I

What is the PhD of Jeremy Sherman, and from what university?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-PhD-of-Jeremy-Sherman-and-from-what-university/answer/James-Leland-Harp

Answer requested by

Hans-Georg Lundahl

James Leland Harp

UC Berkeley grad, Stanford alum, Harvard fellow, former professor and director

Thu 25.IV.2024

St. Mark

A2A. What is the PhD of Jeremy Sherman, and from what university

According to Jeremy Sherman LinkedIn account, he got his PhD in Decision Science from Union Institute and University in 2021. See

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremyshermanphd/details/education/

For more information about Union Institute and University, see

Discover the Union Difference
https://myunion.edu

St. Mark

Thu 25.IV.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1. What is “Decision Science”?
2. Is not Union Institute heavily focussed on teaching “modern” subjects like “leadership” or “social justice” or teaching in California (while the campus is in Ohio)?

Fri 26.IV.2024

James Leland Harp

Why don’t create a LinkedIn account and message Jeremy for details about “decision science”? He would be the right person to explain his dissertation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I actually have one, and I accessed his profile.

• Union Institute & University Doctor of Philosophy - PhD, Decision Science janv. 1998 - 2021
  https://www.linkedin.com/school/myunionedu/
  
  
• University of California, Berkeley Masters, Public Policy Analysis sept. 1993 - juin 1995
  https://www.linkedin.com/school/uc-berkeley/
  
  
• U.C. BerkeleyBachelor's degree, Social Sciences 1981 - 1984
  https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=U.C.%20Berkeley&sid=Cgp
  
  Niveau : 3.9 I went general, with classes in political science, economics, journalism, history, psychology, sociology, biology and the hard sciences.

Thank you. I think this was helpful, I tried to see his linkedin yesterday, and the extention was stopping his page from showing, I thought he had deleted it. Well, technically, probably not “the extension” as such, but a few characters after the last slash

Q, A II

What is the PhD of Jeremy Sherman, and from what university? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-PhD-of-Jeremy-Sherman-and-from-what-university/answer/Joshua-Gross-8

Answer requested by

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joshua Gross

Associate Professor of Computer Science at CSUMB

26.IV.2024

Our Lady of Good Counsel

I assume you’re speaking of this guy:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremyshermanphd/

His PhD is from the soon-to-be-defunct online institution Union Institute and University.[1] They stopped offering coursework in Fall of 2023 and seem to have no plans or resources necessary to open. They have been evicted from their headquarters and cannot receive federal financial aid. They have apparently put teach-out programs in place. That’s the last step.

This is not to say that he’s some sort of fraud or didn’t receive a solid education. He does not have any formal qualification in psychology, although that’s a bit confusing:

But…

I don’t say this to disparage him. I find myself in a similar situation, since none of my degrees is in computer science. He may be a fantastic life coach. A formal credential in psychology is not necessary to be a life coach, and it’s not the only way to learn the relevant literature/information.

Footnotes

[1] Union Institute & University - Wikipedia

Sat. 27.IV.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you very much.

In other words, he’s basically trying to be a life coach, rather than for instance do metaphysics or theory of knowledge or theory of science?

I mean overall, as opposed to individual items on his internet output.

Mon. 29.IV.2024

Joshua Gross

From what I can tell, he has a number of sources of income and has held a lot of different careers. If his general content is geared toward big-picture stuff, that makes sense; his writing and YouTube are likely to just be a hobby, and we all want to think big thoughts when we can. He’s probably not making any money from it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK.

The problem is, I interacted with that, on basically big picture debate conditions, and he switched to life coach mode, when I complained of being censored.