Tolk Lang QQ

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tolk Lang QQ · Tolkienophobia · As Tolk Lang QQ Keep Dropping In · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: I'm Not the First to Ask · New blog on the kid: Since I'm Being Pestered by Tolkienophobes ...

Q I

What is the reason for the different names given to trolls and orcs in The Lord of the Rings?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-reason-for-the-different-names-given-to-trolls-and-orcs-in-The-Lord-of-the-Rings/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

28.VI.2024

Vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul

Trolls in fairly Western parts of Eriador are supposed to have spoken Westron, which “in translation gives” English (according to Tolkien’s conceit), hence English names.

Orcs are some of them very fluent in Black speach and all somewhat savvy about it, so their names are in Black speech (same language as the ring inscription).

Q II

Did J.R.R. Tolkien create his own constructed languages, such as Elvish? Is there any evidence to support this?
https://www.quora.com/Did-J-R-R-Tolkien-create-his-own-constructed-languages-such-as-Elvish-Is-there-any-evidence-to-support-this/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

28.VI.2024

Vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul

Yes, two evidences actually. Or even three.

1. Their complete non-existence in public print prior to his publication of The Hobbit (which includes the Sindarin names Elrond, Esgaroth, Thranduil, Dorwinion, Gondolin) and then The Lord of the Rings (which includes texts in both Sindarin and Quenya, as well as more names in both, and the plant names elanor and athelas) — but this could be accounted for also by Tolkien’s own fictional account of having found very old written material and deciphered it. He didn’t go to quite the lengths that Joseph Smith did to keep up the fiction, but still.
2. However, if they were languages he had found, he would not have been altering and altering them from 1930’s to Lord of the Rings in the ways he did. Sure, one changes Naram-Lin to Aram-Sin, because one thinks one has detected a misreading in cuneiform, but the changes he actually did are far beyond what correcting misreadings could account for, yes, we do have his notebooks from the 1930’s and can compare Lord of the Rings style Quenya to 1930’s Qenya, Lord of the Rings style Sindarin to 1930’s Goldogrin. Dedicated fans who had the confidence of his son Christopher Tolkien have done a great job looking at these things. Tolkien tinkered with his languages, in a way archaeologists would never tinker with the extinct languages they try to decipher (it’s more like the difference between Proto-Indo-European as per Schleicher in 1868 and Proto-Indo-European in the version that includes 3 Laryngeals as per Jerzy Kuryłowicz 1927, there is a big difference between deciphering and reconstructing a language no longer spoken).
3. A third indicator is that the vocabulary is limited to coincide with Tolkien’s certainly wide but not universal range of interests. He loved Botanics, and we are not surprised the notebooks from the 1930’s give a complete list of flower and tree names in the two languages as they were then. On the other hand, he is not a finance enthusiast. He may have been meticulous about his finances, but he didn’t write poetry about them. In Matthew 25:27 we find terms related to that, and the Bible translater Helge Fauskanger when translating this to Neo-Quenya had to include a word not found in Tolkien: Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury[1] / Etta mauyane lyen panya telpenya as i *sarnomor, ar íre túlen ence nin came ya ninya né as napánina telpe![2] I think "sarnomor" is how Fauskanger imagines "bankers" or "money lenders" would translate, but Tolkien didn't imagine it, hence the asterisk.

Footnotes

[1] Douay-Rheims Bible [Matthew 25:27]
https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=25&l=27#x

[2] I Vinya Vére
The New Testament in Neo-Quenya
http://ardalambion.net/nqnt.htm

Tolkien leads on

to something about Christianity, and so also this time. I posed a question and got an answer involving Helge Fauskanger's view on battologein:

Q III

Did Helge Fauskanger consider Mt. 6:7 as containing the concept "monotonous repetition"?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Helge-Fauskanger-consider-Mt-6-7-as-containing-the-concept-monotonous-repetition

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.VI.2028

Vigil of Sts Peter and Paul

7 But when you are praying, do not say the same things in monotonous repetition, as people of the [heathen] nations do, for they think that they will be being heard by using numerous words.

7 Mal íre hyámal, áva quete i imye nati mi vorongandale, ve queni i liendion carir, an sanilte i nauvalte hláraine *yuhtiénen rimbe quettali.

Q III, Resp A

https://www.quora.com/Did-Helge-Fauskanger-consider-Mt-6-7-as-containing-the-concept-monotonous-repetition/answer/Modern-Dionysian-4

Modern Dionysian

28.VI.2028

Vigil of Sts Peter and Paul

Wow you're so desperate to sound super smart you don't realize one monotonous means dull repetitive so you're asking did this person consider that the verse that says pray not in vain repetition has repetitious repetition which the verse does not repeat itself it does not contain but not in this repetition there's nothing about it that is dull or interesting there's nothing about it but it's repetitive especially repetitiveness squared but you use big words that you don't understand what they mean in regards to the first that tells you to avoid repetition especially vain which means basically self-serving look at me how great I am which is the whole point of your message I'm going to show everybody that I'm smart I have no idea what I just said and when I do I'll realize how dumb I sound why don't you actually get educated on the topic you're trying to see me educated on that would be a phenomenal reprieve for my time on this platform

Hans-Georg Lundahl

29.VI.2028

Day of Sts Peter and Paul

I’m sorry, but it’s not a question of supersmart, but of the correct interpretation of a Greek word.

I am not aggrandising myself, I’m defending the Rosary against Protestant mistranslations!

As you are possibly not Helge Fauskanger, you are possibly not a professional Bible translator. He is. It’s more than just the Neo-Quenya he’s guilty of, if so, I think Norway has or will have a new translation of the Bible.

Battologein can be translated most directly as “stutterspeak” … though some have interpreted it as “speak as the poet Batta” (not sure if he even existed).

Syriac and Coptic have “stutter” and Latin has “use many words” so presumably it means being so nervous you end up rephrasing and rephrasing yourself (but not monotonously) to impress a benefactor you feel nervous before.

Jesus isn’t telling anyone to avoid repeating short prayers (monotonously even), or to avoid rereading long ones from the Psalter, He’s telling us “you are not Shakespear, God is not your backseat (bad acoustics) audience” … that’s pretty clear from the context:

1. Be not you therefore like to them, for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him. — God isn’t needing our explanations and motivational speeches.
2. speak not much, as the heathens. — We can check how Greco-Roman heathens prayed, and it was not reciting mantras, it was holding speeches.

So NEITHER monotonous NOR verbatim repetition belongs in the verse, it’s nervosity and holding speeches we need to avoid.

EDIT: the NT by Helge Fauskanger is there in Norway since 2015:

Dagen: Et veldig nytt Nytestamente?
Sverre Bøe, professor dr. theol. ved Fjellhaug Internasjonale Høgskole | Publisert: 19.04.2015 14:43
https://www.dagen.no/okategoriserade/et-veldig-nytt-nytestamente/

Q IV

Who created Elvish, the fictional language from The Lord of the Rings? Is it a real language or was it invented for the purpose of the book?
https://www.quora.com/Who-created-Elvish-the-fictional-language-from-The-Lord-of-the-Rings-Is-it-a-real-language-or-was-it-invented-for-the-purpose-of-the-book/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

2.VII.2024

More than one question, or misstatement. More than one answer.

“Who created Elvish,”

Tolkien created both languages called “Elvish” namely “High Elven” / Quenya and “Grey Elven” / Sindarin.

“the fictional language”

In English, “fictional language” is a language presumed by the story to exist, but never actually shown, but if instead you show the language that the story presumes to exist, it is, like reconstructions of Indo-European, and like Esperanto, a conlang (the three types are Reconstructed Language, Auxiliary Language, Artistic Language). And as said, Elvish is two of them. In French however, a Con-Lang, that is an Art-Lang would (alas) tend to be called “fictional language” … it’s not as if people saying “Mae govannen” were giving each other a purely fictive “well met” …

“from The Lord of the Rings?”

Both yes and no. Quenya and Sindarin existed, for instance for purposes of Silmarillion stories (like those published after his death by his son, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and a few more) before The Lord of the Rings, but The Lord of the Rings was the first time he published texts longer than single words in them like names. So, he stuck to the version of them he had used for the purpose of the books and rewrote parts of the Silmarillion stories (as said, published later by his son, after he died) using this version.

There were other things he rewrote with The Lord of the Rings in mind, like giving a back story to Galadriel.

“Is it a real language”

They are or at least Quenya is a real language insofar that one can write texts in it and learn to read such texts. Neo-Quenya, i e texts written by others than Tolkien often needs to invent words he did not give. However, they are not things spoken by actual populations of people growing up in them. That’s where some linguists would pretend that only those are real languages, I disagree.

“or was it invented for the purpose of the book?”

They were invented for stories, or stories were invented for them, prior to that novel (in three volumes, so I wouldn’t call it “the book” rather than “the books” …). The novel was conceived when writing a sequel to The Hobbit involved admitting fairly and squarely that The Hobbit was set in the same world as the earlier stories, even if he hadn’t originally intended it to be so. This had the added benefit (“yeah” quoth his authorial heart!) to give him the opportunity to include some texts in Quenya, and some (plus some terms) in Sindarin.

Q V

Can you provide some examples of Sindarin and Quenya poetry?
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-provide-some-examples-of-Sindarin-and-Quenya-poetry/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

5.VII.2024

Quenya in LotR, Namárië.[1]

Sindarin in LotR, A Elbereth Gilthoniel.[2]

Footnotes

[1] Namárië - Wikipedia
[2] A Elbereth Gilthoniel - Wikipedia

Thomas Westbrook Considers Faith Healers as Scammers and Compared Jesus to Them (How Many Heal Hansen's Disease?)

This Verse Secretly Undermines All of Christianity
Holy Koolaid | 22 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTnQydJ4O4k

3:15 Leprosy is Hansen's disease, can heal in antibiotics cures that take six months.

Any of those scammers did any attempt at instantaneous healing of leprosy?

3:48 The paralysed man was a Jew and the Old Testament included the death and resurrection in symbolic terms.

This means that the man was already in symbolic terms believing Jesus' death and resurrection.

(The position of Judaism once it explicitly rejects Jesus, His death and resurrection is different).

He was forgiven in view of the merits of Jesus on the Cross, precisely as King David was forgiven when he had sinned, after making the psalm miserere. The God to Whom the sacrifice was directed was watching Calvary from all Eternity into all Eternity. That's why the paralytic man could be forgiven before Calvary happened in Time.

4:11 Catholicism doesn't say God is powerless to forgive sins without a sacrifice, but that that sacrifice was the most fitting means of providing forgiveness.

Druid Riley

@druidriley3163

Why is it fitting at all?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@druidriley3163 If God had forgiven sins with no one paying for them at all, the forgiveness would not have shown the seriousness of the sin.

Just as if the seriousness were shown only by people paying themselves, there would be no forgiveness.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl with no one paying for them at all, the forgiveness would not have shown the seriousness of the sin Are you joking? How did Jesus' death on the cross do that? They were living at a time where Romans were crucifying people regularly. Jesus being strung up was just Tuesday to them. How would that "show" them anything?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 The Romans weren't the first to believe.

Except one Centurion. Blood and water coming from a side he pierced was not Tuesday to St. Longinus.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl Except .. Except that's just a story. The name Longinus wasn't even attached to this story for centuries.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 Your TOK / Epistemology is as faulty as your logic.

A story believed by its first audience to be true and about events in the recent past of their group (or even not so recent past), while it may contain error or fraud, it's not likely to be fiction.

4:43 You have totally missed the point that the cause of forgiveness both for the paralytic and for the good robber, St. Dismas, was the sacrifice on the cross.

And that God was watching Calvary even before He created Adam and Eve, so He was always able to forgive in view of that.

But that's a very different thing from there being no Calvary to watch, I am not saying God was making a probable prognosis about it. I say He was watching it. A k a God is outside time and watches all of time at once.

Druid Riley

I say He was watching it If he can watch it before it happened, then there is no free will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 Yes, there is.

Your argument is as bad as if I said "if I see you do sth, it's impossible that you aren't doing it, so, my seeing you do it deprives you of free will" ....

Druid Riley

@hglundahl is as bad as if I said "if I see you do sth, it's impossible that you aren't doing it Except that isn't my argument. My argument is if god can SEE your actions before they happen, then to god, they've already happened and he knows what you're going to do, that's the "omniscient" part of being god. So, no, you don't have free will if god can see what you're going to do. If we truly had free will, god couldn't see what we're going to do because he wouldn't know what we're going to do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 "to god, they've already happened"

To God they are happening, as you chose them within the parameters of choice.

God is never in a state of "I didn't know that before, but have learned it now" ...

Therefore, God's omniscience is no annulment of our freedom. Got it this time?

Druid Riley

@hglundahl God is never ... Agree that is how god is written. That means he's omniscient. Look up the definition of that word, you don't seem to know what it means. Catching on yet?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 I know well what it means.

You are dense about how it works ... namely in a way which does not take away freedom.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl You are dense about how it works Oh OK, so YOU explain to me how omniscience works for a supernatural being. I'll wait.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 Here.

If God experienced time in our timeline, then his knowing beforehand would be like us knowing beforehand: we can only really know beforehand if it's a necessity (or revealed by God, quod vide, other story).

God does NOT experience time in our timeline, rather in all of His eternity He has all of our timeline spread before Him. This means God watching me tomorrow, God watching me yesterday, God watching me right now are all not just the same God, but in the same eternal divine moment, meaning, to Him it is simply knowledge by simultaneous observation. It leaves us as free as simultaneous observation by fellow human beings does.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl You just reiterated that the future is already laid out as god can see it. IOW, no free will. We just THINK we have free will, we don't really have it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 No, I didn't.

Learn to read.

"already" would refer to our timeline, it's only in God's that it's laid out, but that doesn't change the nature of the choices within it, it's only laid out to Him, because He's outside it.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl Yes, I can read. Here is your quote from your post He has all of our timeline spread before Him So, like i said, you just reiterated that the future is already laid out and god can see it. So, no free will. If there WAS free will, there would be NO timeline God could see because we haven't made any decisions yet. Period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 There isn't in our timeline.

5:08 Oh, it did. Converting the Romans to Christians freed Israelites from their oppressors, and the kingdom called the Catholic Church was the spiritual home to Jewish and Samarian Christians, dare I say Jewish and Samarian men of Galilee, even before Constantine, and in it, like in the prophecy, Israelites of both ancient kingdoms were not having standing armies.

So to this day, confer how Zionists claim that Palestinians never had statehood, i e never had an army for the last 2000 years, that being identical for their cousins of Jewish confession, Mitsrahi Jews.

5:21 W a i t .... you pretend Christianity began after the Destruction of the Temple?

By that time, Christians in Rome looked back on the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and they had already provided the Christian story.

You suggesting they hadn't is equivalent to pretending the story of George Washington was just invented at last years Fourth of July party.

Druid Riley

you pretend Christianity began after the Destruction of the Temple Scholars theorize that's why the gospels were written. To provide Temple centered Jews another way to worship. The only documents we have preceding the destruction of the Temple are Paul's letters. And his Jesus was strictly visionary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 No, his Jesus was not strictly visionary.

No, it doesn't make sense just because scholars theorise that.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl No, his Jesus was not strictly visionary In his letters, Paul repeatedly says he gets his teachings directly through visions from Jesus and not from any living person

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 Yes, but once he also states to knowledge of a crucifixion and a resurrection ... and how many of His former disciples, who had known him physically, saw Him risen.

Once Jesus is physically in heaven, visions are how some of us get more recent personal acquaintance, but that doesn't cancel the one prior to Ascension.

Druid Riley

@hglundahl and how many of His former ... he didn't meet any, as far as I read. He met someone called Peter (Jesus' apostle was Simon) and a "brother" he calls James. If these were the handpicked apostles of a living Jesus who was the son of god, why does Paul dismiss them, say they are "so-called" and tells his followers that their teachings are not going to affect his? Paul is treating them like they're street preachers like himself.

visions are how some of us ... Visions can also be hallucinations and mental illness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@druidriley3163 "he didn't meet any, as far as I read."

He briefly met St. Peter in Jerusalem.

He also met his disciples in Antioch (if St. Peter was Simon Niger, St. Paul was probably not aware of it).

As for dismissing and so called, you conflate the above with the episode of Galatian 2. Likely solution, the guys he on that occasion were frauds.

"Visions can also be"

1) Doesn't annul my point that pre-Pauline visions appearances of a strictly physical Jesus are not annulled by later Pauline visions.
2) Visions technically are hallucinations, so are dreams and very intense visualisations in hypnosis. Using this as a criterium for mental illness is very overdone, like the concept of mental illness overall, by enemies of Christianity. It would be very quaint if pathegenic hallucinations falsely taken for messages from a Risen and Ascended Jesus operably coincided with what His previous disciples had known Him to teach.

6:34 Oh, you are pro-death ... and pro-infertility ...

That seems to be a very common value system shared by lots of Atheists, meaning that the idea of you having only one answer in the negative to one single question is very moot ... apart from showing that your objections, if you think through what you just said (hope you didn't) or were involved in some (dito) come from a jerk.

6:37 Young Earth Creationist here ... what was your point again?

6:39 Flat Earth most often doesn't come from Biblical inerrantists and is also not what Biblical inerrantism lends itself to, mostly.

I don't share your disdain for the late Rob Skiba II, btw. He was both a Biblical inerrantist and a Flat Earther.

6:54 The structure of televangelist fortunes (Copeland is Old Earther, more specifically Gap Theory) owes more to the idea of the Reformation in writings like those of Luther and Kings applying them, like Gustav Wasa and somewhat later Henry VIII.

The theory was, fewer preachers with larger congregations could earn more, even if each in the congregation gives less. At the beginning of the Covid epidemic in Alsatia, there was a cluster in a Pentecostal meeting involving c. 5000 people in one single place. In Catholic Europe 500 years before that, each of them would have gone to his Church on a Sunday, often one Church taking as big an area as three or four bakeries, and each Church often offering more than one Mass on Sunday, so each of the priests could celebrate.

Those priests were somewhat poorer. They were heavily regulated by superiors in the Church. That's what some of the guys doing the Reformation (arrived in Strassburg in 1523 btw) found irksome.

Please note, the Catholic Church believed in Biblical inerrancy, and in univocity in the sense given by Dan McClellan. It was Young Earth Creationist. And it didn't allow Copeland type fortunes below the level of a bishop. Most clergy weren't bishops.

7:39 You are perfectly free to use televangelist tactics, like appealing for donations, but don't expect those ones from me.

Mitis et humilis corde, month

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

This is what Catholics do in June. Fr. Ripperger gets that right.

God’s TRUE REASON for the Great Flood: GAY MARRIAGE?
Adrian Milag TV | 20 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48D5M94eevQ

1:04 Not every man who suffers from same sex attraction is in error about the sinfulness of living out that attraction.

I have a friend, artist, Catholic, self identifies as chaste homosexual, and, well, he states that he has that particular temptation to fight, but he's fighting it.

bosco alinaitwe

@user-zk3me4gs6p

Sin and Chaste cannot live together come on!

Brosephina

@joea.9969

Just like bot everyone with alcoholic tendencies is committing sin, when you give in and get drunk all the time and do harmful things, thats the sin,

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@joea.9969 As I mentioned a while ago* to bosco alinaitwe / @user-zk3me4gs6p, resisting temptation can coexist with chastity.

And being alcoholic can exist with sobriety if you never drink.

As you used the pronoun "you" (not sure whether you meant like French "on" or like French "vous" / Spanish "se" or Spanish "Usted"), I might want to clarify, I have never been either an alcoholic nor a homosexual.

* Note:

the comment seems to have disappeared.

Brosephina

@hglundahl ah I meant “ you” as in, you in general/ everyman, not you personally.
I was just agreeing with this comment in my own way

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joea.9969 Thank you!

pastor brian

@pastorbri

but every homophobic acts out things of their sin

@joea.9969 chosing to abuse booze is not the same as being born LGBT

Brosephina

@pastorbri we all sin in our own way but we should admit its in fact sinful, not celebrate it something to be proud of like an achievement. Some people are proud of being obese or drug addicts thats not a good thing either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@pastorbri I doubt if ever anyone was born that way, I think it's always a combination involving sth else.

One special case would be people who think they fit their sex stereotypes horribly ill, partly because of how they were born, but crucially because they grow up in a too gendered context.

Romans 1 states "idolatry" and I think the idolatry of Hercules led (even psychologically) to lots of cases of people growing up homosexual.

I think James V of Scotland (or IV? III?), James VI / I of Scotland / England and Charles I had similar levels of inborn androgynity, but the Medieval, in the least gendered society was hetero, the Calvinist upbrought was predominantly homo, the High Church Anglican was bi, probably predominantly hetero.

3:04 "we have to help people overcome these issues"

Fine, so far.

Distinguo, however.

• when they admit to being homosexual, to actively pursuing it, there are some things you can do to block out their message; you don't just do that because you presume someone is homosexual, not even if a shrink will tell you "sure he is" ...
• and also, the help to different homosexuals (once they agree they are such a thing) may be different, like some guys of that persuasion just need to meet the right girl (who might be lesbian) ... this is what happened with my country-man Svante Pääbo. He's married, and I mean it as in validly, and both he and his wife thought they were exclusively homosexual before they met each other. No specific therapy and no time of chastity needed.

6:43 "asking for their healing and the grace to live chaste lives"

Please reserve that to people who have admitted to being homosexual, and have stated they are not trying to get a normal marriage, if as much. Some of them should probably meet someone of the opposite sex.

If someone who has on the contrary stated being heterosexual, and has stated seeking marriage, is simply suspected of being homosexual, and you pray that prayer, and also socially machinate to keep such a someone celibate, and perhaps poor so he's forced to be celibate, then you are the guys fulfilling "forbidding to marry" ... we know I Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. ... cannot refer to a general ban on marriage, since the times before Harmageddon will be strikingly like those before the Flood. Matthew 28:37—39 And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be.

So, I Tim 4:3 must refer to forbidding specific people (who have not volunteered for it) to marry.

That said, I think Our Lord used coded language. Vampyrism, cannibalism, gay marriage, forced perversion "marriages" ... but Our Lord probably didn't want to use so crude words.

8:12 "the Church has always encouraged for people struggling with this particular issue"

Since the time of Paul VI?

In 1568, St. Pius V actually did mention a category of homosexuals who had to live chastely in solitude, but that's about people kicked out of priesthood or subdiaconate or monasteries, after they were already obliged to abstain from marriage.

I do not think there is any rule forbidding the Svante Pääbo solution. From before Paul VI, or Anti-Pope Montini, that is. If there is, bring forth the evidence. The phrase "homosexuals are called to live chaste lives" occurs first time over in his public writings. Rephrase it "a sodomite repenting must do penance in abstaining from attempting marriage" and try to find support from that prior to 61 years ago. If you can.

And I obviously mean from Rome, not from Pobodonostsev, even if I think there were reasons to excommunicate Leo Tolstoy. We are not bound by the customs of the Russian Orthodox, since they are in Schism.

9:57 That some Catholic psychologists exist who do a good job is entirely possible.

But there are also psychologists who look for signs of evils that aren't there, and some of them might be of the Catholic profession.

If you are praying for someone to find a psychologist rather than a wife, given he's male, obviously, you would possibly be doing a I Tim 4:3 thing. Especially as constantly misconstruing someone the way that shrinks do take some of the attitude described in previous verse.

Antecedent Will, Clarity of St. Paul, Access to Apostolic Tradition

I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him · A Comment of Mine Sparked a Debate · Which Went On ... and Was Censored? · Continuing · Carolina Jackson Continued · Antecedent Will, Clarity of St. Paul, Access to Apostolic Tradition

Carolina Jackson

@carolinajackson7621

@hglundahl Hello Hans,
1. I don't know what God's "antecedent will" is.
2. 1 John 5, 1. Of course "born of God" means eternal security! A person born of God has been cleansed of his/her sins.
3. Ephesians 1, 12-14 is OSAS 100%, since the verses show the whole process from believing, receiving the Holy Spirit as deposit, & getting to the day of redemption.
4. Romans 8, 38-39. I don't understand why u say it cannot apply individually.
5. Romans 11, 29: "irrevocable"... those called cannot lose the salvation.
6. John 6, 47: OSAS very clearly. And the idea of a "state of grace" is not biblical. God has never said that. That is man-made.
7. John 3, 36: OSAS very clearly; those who reject him were never said.
8. 1 John 5, 13. Collectively? That idea has nothing to do with the meaning of the verse: believing in Jesus brings saving faith.
9. John 5, 24 has nothing to do with obeying but with believing & being saved for ever.

God cannot give someone the free gift of salvation & then take away that gift. That would make him a lier.

@hglundahl MORE ON OSAS:
"It would seem to me, that if our salvation was at risk due to sins we commit, the Bible would give very clear and explicit details as to what sins result in the loss of salvation. There would have to be a breakdown of which sins need to be confessed and repented of, and which sins result in salvation being lost and require a person to get re-saved. But, there is no such list.

The Bible nowhere describes anyone getting re-saved. The Bible nowhere teaches how to get re-saved. The Bible nowhere outlines under what circumstances a person needs to be re-saved. Don’t you think, with as important as these would be if salvation could be lost, that the Bible would give explicitly clear instructions?

Salvation “lost and found” individuals insist that grievous sins and apostasy result in salvation being lost. But, who gets to define which sins are grievous (Matthew 5:21-28)? And, what degree of apostasy is required? Is salvation lost due to doubt / lack of faith, or does it require an actual denial of Christ?
The complete absence of what would be crucially important instructions could salvation be lost is, in fact, powerful evidence that salvation cannot be lost.
Eternal salvation is wholly a work of God, for no human can save himself. Eternal salvation is described in Isaiah 51:6 when the Lord God says through Isaiah, “My salvation will be forever.”

@hglundahl u make a great point when u say that when Jude wrote his book, Revelation has not been written yet.
Jude said that the faith was given ONCE to the saints.
So, what then?
Let's define what Jude means by faith: the gospel of JC.
Revelation does not add anymore doctrines for salvation. Revelation is prophecy, nothing that concerns believers regarding their redemption.
So, yes, the faith was complete within the NT.
Anything else is confusing word of man, & nothing more than that.
Compare the complicated pathway for salvation as formulated by the CC with the simplicity of the gospel: "Believe in the Lord Jesus & u will be saved".
Come out of the deceiving. Come to the light of Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@carolinajackson7621 1. I Tim. 2:3b,4 in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2. 1 John 5, 1. "A person born of God has been cleansed of his/her sins."

The previous ones.

3. Ephesians 1, 12-14 "is OSAS 100%, since the verses show the whole process from believing, receiving the Holy Spirit as deposit, & getting to the day of redemption."

If you had picked verse 11, you could have made a case all believers were predestined.

But it could also mean St. Paul is here limiting the scope to those predestined.

Anyway, the verses you picked have non-indicative moods. Moods that convey the idea of "in order to" ...

4. Romans 8, 38-39. I don't understand why u say it cannot apply individually.

It certainly applies individually to some, and to those St. Paul is specifically thinking of. But it applies collectively to the "us" of which such predestined souls visibly belong, the Church.

5. Romans 11, 29: ""irrevocable"... those called cannot lose the salvation."

Without repentance. not irrevocable. 278. ametamelétos

The context is not about the salvation of an individual, but about the vocation of the Jewish nation.

6. John 6, 47: "OSAS very clearly. And the idea of a "state of grace" is not biblical. God has never said that. That is man-made."

Saying "everlasting life" means "eternal security" is manmade.

7. John 3, 36: "OSAS very clearly; those who reject him were never said."

Intellectual belief is not the only condition, as per 21 of same chapter. Ceasing to do the truth is a possibility.

8. 1 John 5, 13. "Collectively? That idea has nothing to do with the meaning of the verse:"

It says "you" and not "thou" ... he's not just adressing each and every individual believer, but in immediate context a Church of such. This is the issue with lots of pretended OSAS prooftexts.

"believing in Jesus brings saving faith."

If we act on it, which we can start to do and then cease to do. See the shallow ground or the ground with the weeds.

9. John 5, 24 "has nothing to do with obeying but with believing & being saved for ever."

that he who heareth my word, echoes Matthew 7:24,25, confer verses 26,27.

"It would seem to me, that if our salvation was at risk due to sins we commit, ... But, there is no such list."

Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, Matthew 19. Ten Commandments. Definition of mortal sin: breaking one of the ten in an important matter with full insight and will.

Furthermore, when it comes to what constitutes an important matter, it makes sense for this to be left to local bishops, for instance as VII forbids stealing, and the matters when this is important would include quantity, where monetary values have changed, motivation, where getting food without theft may be more challenging in some areas than others, common usage, where taking the train or bus without paying is seen with different severities ...

"The Bible nowhere describes anyone getting re-saved."

II Cor. chapter 2 include a formerly incestuous man granted pardon after doing penance. Presumably he would have been already baptised, already saved from previous sins, prior to the offense falling on the radar of the Church in Corinth.

"The Bible nowhere teaches how to get re-saved."

John 20:21 to 23.

"But, who gets to define which sins are grievous (Matthew 5:21-28)"

Jesus in Matthew 5 gives a very thorough definition of interior sins being mortal, not just external actions.

Who decides? The Church. [Matthew 18:17] That means, in the first instance, the Apostles [Matthew 18:18] and later their successors.

"And, what degree of apostasy is required? Is salvation lost due to doubt / lack of faith, or does it require an actual denial of Christ?"

Again an excellent reason to leave it to the Church, since a certain phrase in one context may be perfectly fine and in another may have acquired the connotation of being synonymous with apostasy.

Actually, even voluntary doubt is mortal sin and needs to be confessed, see interior sins as per Matthew 5.

"Eternal salvation is described in Isaiah 51:6 when the Lord God says through Isaiah, “My salvation will be forever.”"

The verse is more like eternal security after apocalyptic events, like after Armageddon or after one's own death, than about justification never being lost while one lives on earth.

"Let's define what Jude means by faith: the gospel of JC."

Faith means everything that Jesus has revealed. Some truths are less necessary when not dealing with apocalyptic events, and are therefore not imminently necessary for every faithful to know and believe, only to believe if he knows them, but the fact there would be an "apocalypse" (modern sense) is in Matthew 24 and parallel passages.

The point is, the faith was given in another format than the NT books. Before the NT books. Jude just defined Tradition.

"the simplicity of the gospel: "Believe in the Lord Jesus & u will be saved"."

The Catholic Church can put it as simply as that when doing missionary work, it will still need complications when you actually live it.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl yes, eternal life is eternal life with God in heaven. What else could it mean? The gospel should it simple both for a tribal person & for a believer, but tge CC complicates everything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "yes, eternal life is eternal life with God in heaven."

It doesn't say "will have" but "have" ... already.

"What else could it mean?"

The life of God, Who lives eternally, already in Earth living in us.

"The gospel should it simple both for a tribal person & for a believer,"

Why? The Old Covenant was anything but simple.

"but tge CC complicates everything."

Not beyond necessity.

And not beyond what many Evangelical "churches" do once you "are saved" ...

@carolinajackson7621 Case in point, Frederick Clement, By The Book Ministries, said:

"when you're 8:22 grasping something so tight you don't 8:24 want to let it go it's probably not good 8:27 for you"

In context, it was probably not good for that person, namely lesbian attraction, but the general principle doesn't hold, and isn't a good key to determining when someone else needs to repent.

It was on the video about Frank Turek and the female LBGTQ student.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl hello Hans, I am very behind in answering r comments. I have several unanswered... Be patient. Have not read the last 4 or so. Sorry about that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Happens!

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl Hans:
"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day." (John 12, 38)

..."the very Words"
We will be judged according to the Word of God, not to the CCC.

Yes, the gospel of JC is simple: "Believe in the Lord J & u will be saved".
The false teachers who have made the gospel virtually unrecognizable bc of the many layers of requirements will be accountable for that.

I don't know what u mean by this:

ME: the CC complicates everything."

YOU: Not beyond necessity.
And not beyond what many Evangelical "churches" do once you "are saved"

THERE is no "necessity" of complicating the gospel. Those who do it, will be judged.

@hglundahl i dont understand r point about Mathew 28, 20. That command is for the whole body of Christ. It has nothing to do with apostolic tradition.

The verse in 2 Timothy, about the "chane" in the teaching has nothing to do with an authorized person authorizing others. The verse is about TEACHING, NOT AUTHORIZING.

"All things I have taught u" does involve what Paul taught Timothy orally, from what we don't have any records.
BUT Paul was not gonna contradict himself & teach different things orally or in written form. Paul didn't teach other doctrines orally. And even if he had done it, we would not have them.
That verse is not a license to fabricate stuff.
I don't know what u mean by this either:
"Most Protestants would agree with us about these two items back then, just say it changed later."

I don't follow "protestants". I follow Christ

@hglundahl YOU:

"...God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3, 16)."

ho tou Theou anthropos - I take it it means a specific class set apart for the service of God, not every believer.

1. do u mean Scripture is not for every believer?
2. Do u mean Scripture does not accomplish those things in every believer?

3. Are u a servant of God? I am!

@hglundahl Acts 20: 32
"Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified."

That was Paul's farewell address in Mileto. He commends the believers to God & the Word, not to any church.

Hans, this is pretty simple: open the Word of God & believe it. Unfiltered. I would recommend u start re-reading the whole NT, little by little, to see what God has for the true believer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Hi, I saw and respond to 3 comments of yours.

You misconstrue Acts 20. See verse 17: And sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the ancients of the church.

In other words, it was the whole Church of Miletus that he commended to God, not an individual believer. In fact, he was not adressing all the believers, he was just adressing the clergy and asking them to forward it to non-clergy believers.

You misconstrue II Tim 2, in verse 2 it says the same commend to faithful men, which means that Timothy was going to authorise them about that message.

""All things I have taught u" does involve what Paul taught Timothy orally, from what we don't have any records."

From which we don't have any records in the Epistles of St. Paul. Big difference from no records at all.

"BUT Paul was not gonna contradict himself & teach different things orally or in written form. Paul didn't teach other doctrines orally."

St. Paul's oral teaching certainly does not (present tense, yes, it still exists) contradict his epistles, but it may very well contradict a hasty reading of them.

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

II Peter 3:15,16

"And even if he had done it, we would not have them."

That idea is not in the Bible.

"That verse is not a license to fabricate stuff."

We reject as spurious your claim that the tradition we call apostolic is fabricated, it is also contradictory to Matthew 28:20. First I will give the full context, from verse 16, because you pretended "That command is for the whole body of Christ." when it was for a special class of believers, and "It has nothing to do with apostolic tradition." when it clearly has:

16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them,

Some doubted is probably a reference to doubting Thomas. Either way, the words were adressed to the Eleven, i e the Twelve minus Judas the Traitor. Not to the 72. Not to all believers in general.

saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

Meaning, whatever He promises, He can keep.

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

One Apostolic Church for all nations, not various national or even smaller denomination. And also, nations as nations, not just individuals as individuals, must be taught and baptised.

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

So, His original order was, not for "all things you will have written down" but all things Jesus had commanded them, i e the kind of thing you pretend to be inaccessible. To us, now.

So, if the totality of Jesus' teaching, beyond the written texts, is inaccessible to us, the order would have some day had to change. Some generation would have been unlike the Apostles and not have access to His full assistance in keeping all truth intact.

What generation would that be? The first one after the Apostles died? No:

and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

No generation at all. The totality of what Jesus taught orally really still is accessible. If you pretend the CC fabricates about it, look up other Churches that make a similar claim. Orthodox. Copts. Armenians. Assyrians. Syriacs.

"1. do u mean Scripture is not for every believer?"

Scriptural truth and readings in Church, yes. Scriptural text, read on one's own, no. Pretty easy to figure out if you know that papyrus scrolls were expensive, and codices (which within some centuries became the standard version of Christian Bibles, as opposed to collections of scrolls) even more so. Driving a rolls royce is not like riding the bus, and owning Bible texts in the ancient world would have been equivalent to RR, only the Gideons very recently made it somewhat more comparable to riding a bus.

"2. Do u mean Scripture does not accomplish those things in every believer?"

Yes, St. Paul states this effect about someone who belongs to a category known as "man of God" ...

"3. Are u a servant of God? I am!"

Because you are a believer? No.

If we look at II Tim 2, verse 24 makes it clear this is a special class: But the servant of the Lord must not wrangle: but be mild towards all men, apt to teach, patient,

Not all believers are apt to teach, and wrangling and lack of mildness are not sins that deprive you of salvation, directly.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl GM, Hans. Just a simple question: U are alive in 2024 & have access to God's Word with r fingertips. Does 2 Timothy 3, 18-19 apply to YOU in its entire or not? Thks.

@hglundahl The Great Commission was not meant just for the original disciples. In Acts, it says persecution caused the church in Jerusalem to scatter, and “[t]hose who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went" (Acts 8:4).”

That early Church modeled that as new believers were discipled, they in turn preached the gospel and discipled others. This is because all believers are called to be ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20) and to be ready “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have (1 Peter 3:15).”

This means every obedient follower of Jesus is called to participate in His Great Commission.

U r right that Paul was addressing only the elders in Mileto, but that does not mean the rest of the believers should have gotten a different comebdation.

Anyhow, the divide & the deceiving are worse than I thought.
So, the all-powerful CC is telling the faithful that not all verses about Scripture apply to everyone the same. Lie.
The CC is telling the faithful that not everyone is a disciple or servant of Christ. Lie.
A Catholic person told me once that John 16, 8-13 doesnt apply to every believer either. Lie.

Jesus never established those categories. Not with the new covenant, where every believer is a priest.
The CC has been keeping the faithful in bondage for centuries, & lying to them.
But many pple are seeing the deceiving. I wish u were one of them, Hans. Go to the feet of Jesus, confess your sins & ask Him to be your Savior. Open the NT & read, little by little, what the Lord has for the beluevers. Ask Him to guide you as u read His Word unfiltered. Unminipulated
God bless you, Hans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 You mean II Tim 3:16, 17?

Verse 16 is not about you or me, it's in general. Verse 17, no I am not furnished to every good work, I can not plant a church or give faithful confirmation, very unlike St. Timothy as well as bishops today.

Acts 8 starts like this:

1 And at that time there was raised a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all dispersed through the countries of Judea, and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men took order for Stephen's funeral, and made great mourning over him. 3 But Saul made havock of the church, entering in from house to house, and dragging away men and women, committed them to prison. 4 They therefore that were dispersed, went about preaching the word of God.

Doesn't sound like all believers were scattered, since devout men were there for St. Stephen's funeral.

They that were scattered had been prominent in Jerusalem already, i e had been clergy.

"This is because all believers are called to be ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20)"

Looked up the verse: For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God.

A few verses earlier it says of St. Paul: Wherefore henceforth, we know no man according to the flesh. And if we have known Christ according to the flesh; but now we know him so no longer. ... But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.

St. Paul being clergy, the idea all believers are ambassadors for Christ doesn't hold.

"This means every obedient follower of Jesus is called to participate in His Great Commission."

Mostly by supporting the clergy, though.

"U r right that Paul was addressing only the elders in Mileto, but that does not mean the rest of the believers should have gotten a different comebdation."

You forget that "all believers" are here only adressed collectively, so to speak as the Church of Miletus.

"So, the all-powerful CC is telling the faithful that not all verses about Scripture apply to everyone the same."

I could figure that one out even if I somehow weren't Roman Catholic.

Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things
[Ephesians 5:24]

Wives are one class of the faithful. Bonus, the Church as a collective was mentioned too.

"John 16, 8-13 doesnt apply to every believer either. Lie."

Starting John 16, These things have I spoken to you, that you may not be scandalized. leads back to ... start of 14 Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me. which comes after predicting the denial of Peter in 13, which begins as follows:

Before the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end And when supper was done, (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him,
[John 13:1-2]

So, we are dealing with clergy, the twelve and the host. We are not dealing with all believers. How do I know it is the twelve and their host? Matthew 26:

16 And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him. 17 And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? 18 But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: the master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. 19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. 20 But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples.

The only people present were Jesus, the twelve disciples, the host.

"Jesus never established those categories."

Matthew 9:37—10:2 Then he saith to his disciples, The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth labourers into his harvest. And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, ...

These were not all believers:

Matthew 4:25 And much people followed him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.

Here is yet another category, which Jesus made:

And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come
[Luke 10:1]

I think you are the one who has more problem with a filter through which you read the NT. Plus you are contradicting yourself, as you explain Acts 8:17 as Peter's very own and uniquely personal possession of the keys being needed for Samaritans. If Gentiles, Samaritans and even Jews needed his presence, that makes him a special category.

I wouldn't deny that, I would only include his successors too.

"The CC has been keeping the faithful in bondage for centuries, & lying to them."

If you mean in accepting clergy as clergy, the NT would be part of the lie. Part of the bondage. And so would Jesus, if He's the Jesus of the NT. You are fairly close to making the Communist case against Christianity.

Carolina Jackson

Hans-Georg Lundahl I forgot to say that Paul didn't commend those elders to a higher bishop. No such a thing is mentioned in the Word. Ignatius from Antioch started that erroneous idea. (I have not read r last comment yet)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Miletus was under the bishop of Ephesus. Precisely as Beroea under Thessalonica (first bishop of which was St. Timothy).

Considering St. Ignatius was second successor to St. Peter and disciple's disciple of St.John, why would he be wrong and you righ?

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl "Go & make disciples, baptizing them..."
it doesn't say go & make "disciples & subdisciples".
U say u are not a disciple.
I assume u r baptized.
??????

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Before answering, I will correct myself. St. Timothy wasn't the first bishop of Thessalonica, but of Ephesus. Probably one of the elders in Acts 20, whether he was already bishop, or became so on this occasion when St. Luke was absent, or even became so on a later occasion.

It doesn't say "go & make "disciples & subdisciples". " You are right on that one.

It also doesn't say "go and make disciples" ... it says μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, which means "teach all the nations" ... bishops are useful when it comes to teaching nationwide.

In II Tim 2:2 St. Paul tells St. Timothy to make disciple-teachers and therefore also through them subdisciples if you will.

So, even if "disciples and subdisciples" weren't mentioned in Matthew 28, the were part of the plan.

I missed

three of her comments previous to above, will now post them together:

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl Hans, if u don't don't think that Scripture accomplish in every believer what it says it does in 2 Tim 3, 18, then u r limiting the power of God's Wod. That would be heretical.

Nowhere in the NT do we see a hierarchy among bishops. Ignatius had no righr to come up with that.
The fact that he is chronologically closer to the disciples than us does not give him that right.

@hglundahl Acts 8, beginning:

"On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and ALL EXCEPT THE APOSTLES were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.
THOSE WHO had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.

@hglundahl so, Paul says we are all ambassadors, but that idea does not support itself?
Hans, if u r not an ambassador for Christ, what are you then???? Pls, tell me bc I don't really know what else a Christian can be.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 I missed three, catching up.

Underlining "all except the apostles" doesn't mean there were only 12 Christians left in Jerusalem, both because there were Christians left to mourn for St. Stephen and because there were people left for Saul to persecute.

I am a citizen of Sweden, but not the ambassador of Charles XVI Gustav. As a Christian, I am foremost a citizen of Heaven and of the Catholic Church.

"then u r limiting the power of God's Wod."

It's not a question of the power, but of authorisation. Orders are not given by Bible reading, but by imposition of hands.

"Nowhere in the NT do we see a hierarchy among bishops."

You aren't looking for it.

"Ignatius had no righr to come up with that."

You have no reason to assume he did.

"The fact that he is chronologically closer to the disciples than us does not give him that right."

The fact that he's chronologically closer to The Disciples than your type of Christians makes it much more probable he is right than that your type of Christians are.

You are appealing to a principle saying "if it's not explicitly in the Bible, it's wrong, it wasn't there in the NT Church etc" ... but that principle itself is not in the NT or elsewhere, like in the OT, and you can't live it. "The Holy Spirit convicted me of selfishness" is no where in the NT.

@carolinajackson7621 PS, St. Paul didn't say "we are all ambassadors" ... the "we" refers to St. Paul.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl Timothy is included in the we, since both Paul & Timothy are mentioned at the beginning of the letter.
But again, if Paul & Timothy are ambassadors of Christ, we all are bc with the New Covenant there are no categories or hierarchies among believers. Whatever Paul says of himself is for everyone. In vers 17, it says that whoever is in Christ is a new creature.
Hans, u seem to be an intelligent person. Don't believe those lied, pls.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Thanks for mentioning St. Timothy.

"with the New Covenant there are no categories or hierarchies among believers"

This, you have very consistently failed to show even one proof text for. It's a human tradition.

A new creature is a citizen of heaven, but not every citizen is an ambassador.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl there is no need for proof text to prove something that God never said: hierarchies & categories among believers.

You have NOT proved those categories exist. The only offices of the NT are elders (also called presbyteros or bishops) & deacons. 1 Timothy & Titus describe what kind of persons they had to be.

IT NEVER SAYS they are a special group for whom the Word of God or the Holy Spirit work differently. That's not only a falsehood but also a heresy bc it limits the reach & effectiveness of the Word.

False teachers who have taught those things will be held accountable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 There are needs to proof text what you claim God has said, namely absence of hierarchies.

If I have not proven the categories exist to you I'm sorry, but you have eyes and do not see, have ears but do not hear.

It's abundantly clear from the NT, starting with Gospels both before the Crucifixion and after the Resurrection.

"elders (also called presbyteros or bishops) & deacons."

So, "elder" is the straight translation of "presbyteros" ... the word we in Catholic Bibles often translate as priests. Bishop is the transscription of "episcopos" ...

Some have supposed that in the NT "presbyteros" and "episcopos" were interchangeable. Even a Catholic writer once agreed to that, otherwise you already have three offices, not just two.

But even if they were interchangeable, you still have three offices, according to the Catholic writer in question, there were different categories within the actual class of bishops, and then these ceased and only the term bishop was raised to refer to them. In the NT, these classes of bishops would be "Apostle", "Evangelist" perhaps also "Prophet" ... though the term is probably referring to people with the gift of prophecy irrespectively of whether they were bishops or not.

St. Paul shows he was what we call a bishop by II Timothy 1:6 which says For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

St. Paul also shows St. Timothy was what we would call a bishop by I Timothy 5:22 which says Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.

St. Paul had become what we call a bishop in Acts 13. Three first verses read: 1 Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. 3 Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

If Simon Niger was Simon Peter being there incognito, St. Paul was ordained by one of the original 12, and if not, the group of bishops in Antioch had their episcopal consecration from the 12, probably from St. Peter (who was the first bishop of Antioch before being the first bishop of Rome).

The first bishops had their power from Jesus, John 20:21—23. And Jesus meant these to have successors, see Matthew 28:20, and before you repeat offend in pretending the words are directed at all faithful, the audience mentioned in Matthew 28 for this occasion is in verse 16 identified as "the eleven" ...

You are inventing things when you pretend that there are no distinctions between the faithful. But you are right that when it comes to the own personal sanctification, the Holy Spirit (or the state of grace) works exactly the same for a bishop and a layman.

"a heresy bc it limits the reach & effectiveness of the Word."

Sts Paul and Barnabas were not told to read the Scriptures, one laid hands on them. Some things the written word was not meant to provide. Also, the words of ordination are words of Christ, which we have by Tradition.

"False teachers who have taught those things will be held accountable."

Matthew 28:20 shows, there cannot be even one century (actually not even one day) in which all of the Church was heeding on any given point false teachers. As all Christians in 500 AD or in 700 AD agreed to there being a hierarchy, this cannot be a heresy.

15 QQ, Six Years Ago, Other Quora Account, Theme Creationism, Some Debate

Q I

If carbon dating was wrong, how would science estimate the age of fossils or artifacts?
https://www.quora.com/If-carbon-dating-was-wrong-how-would-science-estimate-the-age-of-fossils-or-artifacts/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Quentin Smith

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tried to save paleocritti to a blog of mine. "http://ppt.li/3hh"

6 years ago

"If carbon dating was wrong,"

I am a creationist, so I take this first as if I were right. But I don't think carbon dating is totally wrong, I even think it is a relatively right chronological order and becomes mostly very reliable even for absolute dates, c. 500 BC or some centuries earlier.

"how would science estimate the age of fossils or artifacts?"

The main age estimate is not that of science, but of history.

If I have correctly identified Göbekli Tepe as Babel, that means it began (one good guess) 2551 BC and ended 2511 BC.*

This in turn means that the carbon dates are off by different amounts.

9600 BC
2551 BC
7049 extra years

carbon level was 42.626 pmC

8600 BC
2511 BC
6089 extra years

carbon level was 47.875 pmC

This can of course be used for other things which date as 11,600 years old or have 24.58 pmC left, and for other things which date as 10,600 years old or have 27.741 pmC left.

This means that other things can be dated accordingly by scientists.

If Osgood has correctly identified Abraham at c. 80 in Genesis 14 with the year in which En-geddi lost its previous Chalcolithic population, that gives a further identification from history

3400 BC c. (end of chalcolithic in general)
1945 BC
1455 extra years

carbon level was 83.861 pmC

If it is correct to identify Joseph with Imhotep, under Djoser, we have the historic date of Joseph as c. 1700 BC when burying his father and the carbon date of Djoser as 2600 BC.

2600 BC
1700 BC
0900 extra years or 89.685 pmC

So, this can be used for other things dating as 5400 years old or as 4600 years old, or as having now 52.036 pmC or 57.324 pmC left.

But Göbekli Tepe, Chalcolithic of En-geddi with early Pharaonic Egypt and Djoser are not the only archaeological items, and a rise in carbon 14 levels can be extrapolated along a probable curve, from 42.626 pmC in 2551 BC, over 47.875 pmC in 2511 BC and 83.861 pmC in 1945 BC to 89.685 pmC in 1700 BC.

From these probable dates, you can then calculate other ages.

The carbon dated dino fossils which are not quite permineralised and therefore do not quite qualify as fossils either would date from typically 39,000 BC to 22,000 BC, which would be dates just after the Flood or the oldest of them during it.

39000 BC
02957 BC
36043 extra years or 1.278 pmC

Hence, a not too drastic pmC rise from 1.278 to 42.626 would have occurred from 2957 to 2551 BC, in 406 years.

In this time, these days, 95.207 pmC is left, meaning carbon production in atmosphere is 4.793 pmC to replace it, and a production of 41.409 pmC of total atmosphere in that time (see below) is 8.639 as fast (see below) as these days.

Now, 8.639 as fast a carbon production would mean more radiation, which in turn would involve more cold ...

However, how much radiation dose per year is at surface, during this time, I have not been able to find out, despite trying ...

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

42.626 Credits to Carbon 14 Dating Calculator**

01.217

41.409 41.409/4.793 = 8.639

Notes

* I don't know exactly how I came up with 2551 to 2511 BC, I'm taking it as 2607 to 2556 now. While this is not exactly forty years, the 51 years that involve the 40 go from Noah's death (2957 - 350 = 2607) to Phalec's birth (2957 - 401 = 2556).
** Now I can't access this one, since it says, most places:

403 Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html on this server.

Q II

How can the Bible report about the six days of creation, considering that no humans existed then?
https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-Bible-report-about-the-six-days-of-creation-considering-that-no-humans-existed-then/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

God told angels to reveal it to Moses, and possibly God also told Adam first.

Either Genesis 1 or Book of Jubilees 1 was revealed to Moses, and if the latter, Genesis 1 had been revealed as such to Adam or resumed as such by Adam and Jubilees 1 came as a confirmation.

Actually, it seems it is Jubilees 2 which would if anything be a confirmation:

The Book Of Jubilees Chapter 2

“1 And the malak of the presence spoke to Mosheh according to the word of YAHWEH, saying: Write the complete history of the creation, how in six days YAHWEH ALMIGHTY finished all His works and all that He created, and kept Shabbat on the seventh day and hallowed it for all ages, and appointed it as a sign for all His works.”

Q III

If creationists were right and Earth was 6,000 years old, how radioactive would the Earth be?
https://www.quora.com/If-creationists-were-right-and-Earth-was-6-000-years-old-how-radioactive-would-the-Earth-be/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

Here:

Quora Question Details Bot

6 years ago

Because the Earth is 4.54 billion years old all radioisotopes with a half-life less than ~50 million years have all decayed. Now with a 6,000 year age, quantities of radioisotopes with a half-life of greater than 90 years can now exist on Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

First, the literal formulation of the question:

"If creationists were right and Earth was 6,000 years old, how radioactive would the Earth be?"

Spontaneously, what has one thing to do with the other? But, there is a but: questioner gave a detail description:

"Because the Earth is 4.54 billion years old all radioisotopes with a half-life less than ~50 million years have all decayed."

Except those being formed, like C14 ... right?

"Now with a 6,000 year age, quantities of radioisotopes with a half-life of greater than 90 years can now exist on Earth."

Greater than 6000 years, you mean?

Well - the argument presumes that ALL elements and isotopes that are at all possible were created or were formed in the first place, so that the absence of certain ones depends on all of it having decayed.

So, element x could theoretically have isotope y, but we don't find isotope y ... and some physicist concludes this is ... sorry, obviously the half life does not reduce an isotope to nothing, so 90 is the correct one ... it was not 50 billion years half life, but only 50 million years such ...

Well, what if isotope y was never there in the first place, when God created Earth? What would have obliged God to include it? A Big Bang process involved in forming elements? But what would have obliged God to choose that means? Nothing, of course.

Other problem, how do you check a very long half life?

Libby thought he had figured out the half life of C14 at 5600 some years, and when objects are double dated both by carbon 14 and historically, we find that the real half life is 5730 years. Now, with so short a half life, we can get significant portions of it within historically either undisputed or near undisputed chronology.

5730 years (presumed in the following)

2865 (half a half life)

1432 (quarter of a half life)

716 (eighth of a half life)

358 (sixteenth of a half life)

179 (thirtysecond of a half life)

Only very few, if any, would deny the known quality and well documented quality of the history of the last 179, 358 or even 716 years.

To get to the residua after such portions of a halflife, we only need to take square roots at every halving of the time, starting with square root of a half for the first halving, which is, as any A4 paper user knows, 70.7 %.

5730 years ~ 50 %

2865 years ~ 70.7 %

1432 years ~ 84.1 %

716 years ~ 91.7 %

358 years ~ 95.8 %

179 years ~ 97.9 %

In each case of original carbon 14 ratio to the carbon 12 content overall. As the carbon 14 content is always insignificant compared to the carbon 12, the decrease of carbon 14 is nearly the only relevant factor for the decrease of the ratio; whether the atoms decay to N14 or to C12 - I have heard both - the C12 content won't be increased by it.

Now, very few would contest the history since the battle field of Maella (First Carlist War, battle on october 1, 1838, close to 179 years ago, supposing some boots or uniforms can be dug up from the ground and carbon dated).

Not many more would contest the history since 1660, when Samuel Pepys began his diary, supposing its paper was fresh and has been carbon dated and we know from other reason the diary is not a fraud but from Samuel Pepys.

Most would consider the history since 1302 is well known, so that a dead horse from the battle of Courtrai on July 11 1302 would confirm the horse had been grazing grass with carbon of our C14 degree, but what is now left in it is 91.7 % of modern carbon, all of which confirm the half life of carbon 14.

You don't have that for Uranium-Lead or things.

Q IV

Why do anti-theists act like Young-Earth Creationism is the only valid interpretation of Genesis?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-anti-theists-act-like-Young-Earth-Creationism-is-the-only-valid-interpretation-of-Genesis/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

I cannot answer for anti-theists, but I can say that if they do, they have good reasons.

• It is prima facie good exegesis;
• It is historically the not just predominant but universal exegesis, the other one being a very recent accomodation to what Young Earth Creationists do not recognise as real discoveries.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6 years ago

I can also note, I look at the video* in the link, and first picture seen, even as a still, is strawmanning Young Earth Creationism.

“No Plant Death” … er, no, not our position.

Notes

* Video is not clickable (from here).

Q V

Creationism: Do creationists believe in forensics?
https://www.quora.com/Creationism-Do-creationists-believe-in-forensics/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

The comments are not given here, since quoted in the answer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

"Creationism: Do creationists believe in forensics?"

Yes, but not as a foolproof substitute for admission or ocular testimony and also not as if it could even be conducted apart from oral and written evidence.

"Quora Question Details Bot
Aug 8, 2017
Since creationists don't believe in evolution I asume they don't give credit to anything based on observation and analysis of facts, wich is the basis of forensic science."

Since you make a very heavy strawman, I assume you don't give credit to logic, which forbids strawmen.

"Maarten van den Driest
Aug 22, 2014
Exactly. There is a far easier question: do creationists believe anything at all in the past actually happened?"

Yes, very certainly. And the primary criterium for knowing what is not testing traces in material objects for physical or chemical properties, but hearing or reading texts from people who saw the past happen while it was not yet past.

In other words, history comes before archaeology - not the other way round.

6 years ago

Pearlman YeC

Hi Hans Georg, please provide the link re the post u mentioned me ‘a majority of serious scholars..” TY, roger m.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think that could have been to another response?

Pearlman YeC

yes, I received an e-mail notification of the topic and your comment saying ‘my turn’ but was unable to find the question link. perhaps it was deleted.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don’t know, I would not have deleted it.

I do know, I have debated so much, I am now having a heavy head about what debate it could be.

Pearlman YeC

it was not your Q but one u had replied to from a Christian perspective and passed to me to reply from a Jewish one. Your answer was what Judaism would say as to why the so called ‘experts’ still advocate deep-time dogma, yet pretend to own the mantle of science.. so you covered it well for all of us :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

ah, ok!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Here is the Q:

Is it true that the Bible has incorrectly stated the date of the Exodus?

The relevant answer was that of Geoff Houghton.

Q VI

Do any young Earth/universe creation models have any observational predictions that may be confirmed or denied by the James Webb Space Telescope going online soon?
https://www.quora.com/Do-any-young-Earth-universe-creation-models-have-any-observational-predictions-that-may-be-confirmed-or-denied-by-the-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-going-online-soon/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

As part of it seems to be concerned with Distant Starlight.

I have another model, namely Geocentrism with a small universe.

I have even been daring enough to extrapolate from the Bible the fix stars are 1 light day up.

Now, a prediction of this is, in two alternatives:

1. either, in a few years, Voyager will miraculously shine up with reconnected image transmission and show it is in the sphere of fix stars, in a geometry impossible for it if stars are all across the inner space of a very much larger globe and showing it is the space of a sphere’s “inner surface” (rubber of balloon space rather than air of balloon space);
2. or, Voyager will stop getting further or further removed, as sphere of fix stars is preventing its progress, but no miracle making the camera and image transmission resume;
3. or, it will be found to be a fraud, the images were deliberately turned off, and the radio signals have been manipulated to show a removal more and more light hours away from earth.

If this prediction fails, next prediction would be, sphere of fix stars is two light days away.

In that case, it would take a few more decades before the same triple scenario actualises.

Q VII

Can the 6th days of creation in the Bible be explained scientifically?
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-6th-days-of-creation-in-the-Bible-be-explained-scientifically/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Bereket Burka

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

“Can the 6th days of creation in the Bible …”

Be true? Yes. Be consistent with what we know of history? Yes. Be consistent with what we know of science? Yes.

But …

“…be explained scientifically?”

No. The agent is not a created agent, but God Himself. Science can classify the results of God’s acts, but not explain them - at least not correctly - in terms of a natural agency.

Q VIII

What dating methods are used to calculate the age of fossils older than 50,000 years?
https://www.quora.com/What-dating-methods-are-used-to-calculate-the-age-of-fossils-older-than-50-000-years/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Andre Menahem

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tried to save paleocritti to a blog of mine. "http://ppt.li/3hh"

6 years ago

The most commonly used two are potassium argon and geostratigraphy.

Both of which there is creationist criticism against.

Q IX

Somebody in my class is a young-earth creationist. I feel bad because she doesn't understand how evolution works. Would it be overstepping to try and explain it to her?
https://www.quora.com/Somebody-in-my-class-is-a-young-earth-creationist-I-feel-bad-because-she-doesnt-understand-how-evolution-works-Would-it-be-overstepping-to-try-and-explain-it-to-her/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

How about starting with “why are you a creationist” or “what is it you don’t understand” rather than pushing in on an explanation of sth she may understand MUCH better than you?

I have a bit too often been lectured about “we know species don’t just stay the same” or “have you heard of carbon dating” just because I am creationist.

Yes, I know species don’t just stay the same, and yes, I have heard about carbon dating … your point being …?

Q X

What is the funniest chapter of the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-funniest-chapter-of-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

Not sure, but Genesis 11 is a candidate.

Imagine Nimrod thinking he would get to places where he didn’t need to bother about danger of new Deluge (like, he had seen the rainbow so many times and didn’t trust God anyway), and inventing or endorsing the invention of a three step rocket the top of which would reach into space (a rocket may look like a tower at take off).

Then add that he got fuel wrong, was planning to use Uranium (not knowing about 2H2+O2 => H2O, despite God probably having used that reaction between Oxygen layers of Earth atmosphere and still extant and near Hydrogen layers in space when “the flood gates of heaven were opened” a few chapters earlier).

Then he bases a world wide collaboration centred on his Babel around this project.

God saves mankind from a nuke disaster by blowing the collaboration to pieces, simply by replacing the linguistic competence of participants by a new one, separate for each participant with his family or perhaps for the major 72 tribes, and Nimrod starts shouting orders and no one knows what he means and so all obey him wrong, until they all realise the best thing to do is to get away and settle with people whose language you understand, rather than everyone and anyone else.

If you think that is how the things worked out in practise, it is fairly funny to meditate on.

Jacob Swartz

3 years ago

My favorite story in the entire Old Testament, and arguably my favorite myth of all time! It’s literally one giant joke, yet it still manages to convey SO much metaphysical truth as it relates to human stupidity, among literally hundreds of other things, such as the folly of empire, Man’s infinite longing to conquer nature, the inherent madness of civilization, the rise of the first cities, and the purpose of the ziggurat.

It’s also highly probable that Nimrod was, while essentially a literary composite of multiple great ancient rulers such as Narmer, Sargon, and Hammurabi, intended to be Gilgamesh (seeing as how Nimrod was merely a nickname or a title).

Underrated story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9 months ago

I’d highly disagree on Nimrod being that kind of composite.

I also differ from involving ziggurats into the equation.

Check out the prepottery neolithic of Turkish Mesopotamia.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9 months ago

I agree on Nimrod being a nickname.

Q XI

What evidence do creationists have for their belief system that does not come from the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-do-creationists-have-for-their-belief-system-that-does-not-come-from-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

“What evidence do creationists have for their belief system that does not come from the Bible?”

Well, the Christian beliefsystem of a Catholic Creationist comes from many sources, but the chief ones are Bible and Church Tradition.

The question is about the other ones - and these do not constitute sources for a complete belief system, but for details - one of which would obviously be a Young Earth and that one is much involved in Creationism. I’ll answer for that one.

Positively, we don’t have 4.5 billion, nor even 2 million years of written human history. Also, extra-Biblical and extra-Christian, that is Pagan, versions of early human history seem to agree with ours, and their timelines are around ours. Add salt level of seas if you like. In other words we have evidence pointing to a shorter existence of Earth.

Negatively, contrary to “popular” and “scientific” belief, we do not have a clear cut case for any dating method which would contradict the Biblical chronology.

• potassium argon is debunked by Mt St Helens and by some NZ volcano
• dendro has too little material to go back very far
• C14 can be recalibrated in a creationist sense
• geostratigraphy can be explained by diverse biotopes
• distant starlight (actually more for old universe than directly old earth) is moot unless heliocentrism can be proven, which it cannot.

This mass of purported and failed evidence for an old earth and universe is by itself evidence there is sth wrong with the idea and some providence over men has used their waste of talents to tell us that. I am certain it is God.

Divided

for debates into A, B and C

A

Charles Jack

6 years ago

None of what you wrote is true, but this is especially rich:
“C14 can be recalibrated in a creationist sense”

We know how radioactive decay works. We know why it works. We can test it. The fact that the Sun shines supports it. We know, without question, the ages that C14 gives us are correct.

So when you say “C14 can be recalibrated in a creationist sense” what you are really saying is “Creationists can ignore all of the evidence that supports carbon dating, and pretend that it gives different results.”

That is the Creationist battle cry: Ignore the results of science *and* refuse to learn how science works.

(btw, for the hilariously wrong award, this was a close second: “unless heliocentrism can be proven, which it cannot.”)

22.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The sun doesn’t shine from radioactive decay, but from radioactive fusion, a very different process.

If you think the claim is so hilarious, why not get an extra guffaw from checking out my creationist recalibration of C14?

Btw, it is not built around denying anything about how fast isotopes decay, it’s about a gradual buildup of the carbon 14 level we call “100 pmC” …

Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14

And please tell me more about exactly what results I have ignored and exactly what I would need to learn about how “science works” …

If you want an extra nut to crack, how about proving heliocentrism?

St. John

Monday 24.VI.2024

Charles Jack

Sorry. But like with everything else, you remain hilariously wrong.

Both radioactive decay and radioactive fusion are governed by the Weak interaction.

Consequently, the *fact* that the Sun shines allows to *know* that radioactive decay works - reliably and predictably.

26.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, “Weak interaction” is an abstraction which is concluded from Nuclear Decay and Nuclear Fusion.

Ultimate explanations are not proof, they are things to be proved or disproved. Explanation is at the inverse direction of proof.

THAT SAID, you somehow failed to interact with me saying I do not propose any alternatives in which Nuclear decay doesn’t work, doesn’t work reliable, or works in a very different manner over time.

My recalibration for C-14 presumes that C-14 ever since God allowed the first N-14 atom to become C-14 c. 8 minutes after he created the Sun on day IV, very stably has had the halflife of 5730 years.

B

Jason Bladzinski

6 years ago

You are serious with this? Attempting to debunk scientific claims about the dating methods we use to find the date of the Earth, while being outrageously incorrect, is not evidence of creationism. That's an argument from ignorance fallacy. Creationism requires its own evidence to be validated. Do you have any such (positive! ) evidence?

Radiometric dating is very accurate, and on top of that, we have multiple lines of evidence that converge. The light of stars alone prove the age of the universe to be billions of years old. Is your god in the practice of tricking people that the Earth and universe is billions of years old. That's tantamount to lying and I'm pretty sure that would make him immoral.

22.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For it to be an “argument from ignorance” fallacy, I would need to have been ignoring things.

THE positive evidence for Young Earth Creationism is Genesis, specifically chapters 5 and 11.

“we have multiple lines of evidence that converge.”

Tree rings and varves in Suigetsu lake are less accurate than C-14 …

“The light of stars alone prove the age of the universe to be billions of years old”

Only if they could be proven to be billions of light years distant. Before you can prove that, you first need to prove Heliocentrism.

“Is your god in the practice of tricking people”

God has not chosen the filter for the scientists who draw these conclusions. When I was born Jupiter was in some direction, does that mean God was tricking astrologers to take me for a very helpful person?

Or did astrologers apply that filter on Jove’s position without asking God’s advice?

23.VI.2024

Jason Bladzinski

That's not what an argument from ignorance fallacy is. If one says something is the case because it has not yet been proven to be false, than one is arguing from ignorance. It's to offer no defense whatsoever for one's position other than it hasn't been proven false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I said sth was the case because of the positive historic evidence for it, aka Genesis 1 to 11, or if you prefer calling Genesis 1 prophetic, 2 to 11.

I then added as an extra consideration that the puported proofs of falsity weren’t such.

Fallacy from ignorance is rejected as charge against my answer.

St. John

Monday 24.VI.2024

Charles Jack

Stories are claims. They are not evidence.

Claims require evidence. There is zero evidence that the stories of magic and monsters in Genesis are true.

26.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The evidence in history is claims about history.

The evidence that Spanish War Fascist Veteran Giorgio Perlasca helped Jews in Budapest to get Spanish Citizenship and a safe journey to Spain in 1944 is that some people have claimed that.

Like Raoul Wallenberg, like some of the 5000 Jews, like himself when directly asked. Like his colleague and superior at the Spanish Embassy, Ángel Sanz Briz.

History is a chain of interlocking and mutually coherent claims that interlocks credibly with the own life stories and with claims from your parents or grandparents.

Fiction may involve similar degrees of coherence internally (history being there to help fiction writers achieve it) but fails to interlock with the lives of people. Like, if you walk in New York City, I don't think you'll find offices of the Daily Bugle there.

C

Mobile Task Force Unit Epsilon-11

8 months ago

do you actually believe that the sun revolves around the Earth? or did I hear that wrong?

22.VI.2024

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Universe revolves each day around Earth, and drags the Sun along.

The Sun revolves each year opposite direction along the Zodiac, and that’s why our days and nights are not 23 h 55 min but 24 h long.

If you want to be really complete, God provides the daily motion for the Universe, an angel provides the periodic motion of the Sun, another one for the Moon, another one for Mars and yet another one for Venus.

Q XII

If option A is creationism and option B is Evolution. What is option C?
https://www.quora.com/If-option-A-is-creationism-and-option-B-is-Evolution-What-is-option-C/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

For any item perceived to exist, at least by some, you have four options, first three being options for its actual existence:

• eternism
• creationism
• evolutionism
• illusionism

For instance, a Christian is eternist about God and creationist about the universe and about his soul and usually evolutionist about the English language (using the word evolutionist in a very loose sense), as well as illusionist about experiences of previous lives.

While an Evolutionist Atheist is generally eternist about matter/energy, or used to be before Big Bang became popular, creationist and illusionist about God, evolutionist about the universe, evolutionist and illusionist about his own mind. And usually evolutionist about the English language. He is even creationist about certain works written in it, like Romeo and Juliet. He also would be illusionist about experiences of previous lives.

A Hindoo is generally eternist (with some evolutionism) about the ultimate reality, which would be kind of a “god”, illusionist about the universe and his separate self, also evolutionist about his separate self, as it would have gone through several incarnations and therefore also evolutionist about experiences of previous lives.

Other combinations would be possible.

Q XIII

Which "creation science" sources (books, websites) doesn’t mention evolution? Evolution texts don't waste time with debunking "creation science." Conversely, it seems the only thing "creation scientists" can ever talk about is evolution.
https://www.quora.com/Which-creation-science-sources-books-websites-doesn-t-mention-evolution-Evolution-texts-dont-waste-time-with-debunking-creation-science-Conversely-it-seems-the-only-thing-creation-scientists-can-ever-talk-about-is/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

“Evolution texts don't waste time with debunking "creation science."”

Very wisely so, if not very capable of debunking. Wisely not as in overall wise, but as in smart.

Q XIV

Do creationists support a flat Earth?
https://www.quora.com/Do-creationists-support-a-flat-Earth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Axcella Zed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

6 years ago

Some do, some (and most) do not, and some who do are not creationist.

Q XV

Is there a name for the linguistic equivalent of creationism?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-name-for-the-linguistic-equivalent-of-creationism/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

on which I commented.

Quora Question Details Bot

6 years ago

We all know about the creation/evolution "debate". Creationists believe that the world was created as is, by God, because Genesis says so.

But Genesis also says that various languages were created by God, at the tower of Babel.

This seems to get a lot less space on the Internet, but has similar issues

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6 years ago

“But Genesis also says that various languages were created by God, at the tower of Babel.”

As Creationists also believe this, this is simply part of Creationism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

6 years ago

There is no one linguistic equivalent of creationism.

If you though creationism means fixity of species and linguistics involved some believing a fixity of languages, that would be naive linguistics and misrepresenting creationism.

As to Tower of Babel, creationists do not pretend all 6000 languages and or dialects arrived fullfeathered thousands of years ago, and in some countries French and English replaced Latin by Conquest. We do believe more than one language and mutually incomprehensible ones were spoken directly after Babel, and then language has evolved some.

Or languages have. The singular would mean the evolution of languages were a kind of evolution of language as such, which it is not.

Speciation has also occurred several times over since the Ark, we now have 16 to 25 species of hedgehogs (depending on whether moonrats count or not). On the Ark, there was one couple.

As to my personal theory on whether PIE languages rather come from a Sprachbund than from a Proto-Language, that has been argued by Trubetskoy, independently of any creationist motivation.

The big problem with PIE for a Creationist is, IE languages correspond to more than one of the grandsons of Noah in table of languages. So, say PIE was originally spoken by someone like tribe of Gomer, what happened to the language of Iavan (Greeks) or Madai (Medes)? If on the other hand there really was such a displacement, and you could argue it from PIE being a good reconstruction, why is Nostratic not also one (if you consistently prefer Proto-Language over Sprachbund) and an even older such, since Finnish and Esquimaux shares traits with IE languages.

But there are creationists who do not agree on this point, and if naive conclusions from Tower of Babel were what you were thinking of, you were talking about a counterpart to a naive creationism - which is obviously still less wrong than evolutionism.