Babel or Exodus Myths?

Creation vs. Evolution: Babel in Eridu? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dispute with Douglas Petrovich · Babel or Exodus Myths? · Babel Skyscraper, Portal or Rocket? · Creation vs. Evolution: "On the Evolutionary Timescale" is NOT in my vocabulary

Under the Doug Petrovich video.

John Makovec

So the Bible reuses old Babylonian myths. And those myths have some part historical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Exactly what Babylonian myth features "tower of Babel" story?

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't know. But we know, that Mesopotamia build towers as structures of their religion. We know, that floodstory was used in Gilgamesh epos. We know, that people are able to create myth and legends.

So it's quite probable, that someone "explained" origin of different languages by "too high tower" in that region.

In case of flood, there are multiple different options based on local historical events - migration of people in relation to end of ice age... Connection of Black sea (and rising of waters there) and there was of course multiple local flood, because nature sometimes creates them.

And we know, that some legendary stories have a true information in it, but those supernatural parts are pure fiction.

It is a specualtion? Sure, but based on evidence we can observe in world around us. It's better explanation, than "god did it".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "So it's quite probable, that someone "explained" origin of different languages by "too high tower" in that region."

To my best knowledge, the one who did was Moses + his sources back to Heber and Peleg's time.

"migration of people in relation to end of ice age"

It so happens, the Flood story is not about migrating on land, primarily.

"And we know, that some legendary stories have a true information in it,"

Do we know any legendary story that hasn't?

"but those supernatural parts are pure fiction."

How are we supposed to "know" that?

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if Moses would be author, he was - by biblical story itself - born long after supposed Babel & Flood. So even if he included those stories, he also used - in case of flood - older stories from that region and changed them to fit Hebrew religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec Or he preserved them.

Hebrew version is the one version that does include both Tower of Babel (not very flattering to "mankind") and Noah's drunkenness and nakedness (not very flattering to the main flood survivor).

One argument for it being original. Another one is, it has genealogies (farily boring ones to the general reader / listener) from Flood to "normal historic" times like Abraham and Early Dynastic Egypt.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, preserved & edited to fit their religion. Imagine, that you are an ancient Hebrew priest. You hear a great story about flood. Why not to change it a little bit and use to it to help your narrative?

People were bad, there was flood, Noah was good, now there is rainbow.

And you include also the "clean" and "dirty" animals, what is concept known to you currently. And actually it seems, that original story was about pairs of animals and the increased number of clean animals were added later. (Otherwise, Noah would kill of sheeps after the flood by sacrifise, right?)

Do we have archeological evidence more supporting flood than non-flood? No, we don't. Do we have biological evidence and other verifiable evidence as support for flood than agains it? Yes, we do. But if you want to have Noah's flood as historical, you can have it, because no natural evidence can't be more, than all-powerfull being can't handle.

From this, it's more probable, that Hebrew used stories from nations around them. Especially, if those nations were occupied or enslaved by other nations around them. They knew their culture and when you wanted to be independent state, it's logical, that you also wanted an independent religion structures.

About geneaology... there is a lot of geneaology in the Lord of Rings. If you start with today, you can create whatever geneaology you want, if there is no other source of evidence available for other people to fact-check it.

And to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Sure, preserved & edited to fit their religion. Imagine, that you are an ancient Hebrew priest. You hear a great story about flood. Why not to change it a little bit and use to it to help your narrative?"

I note this is speculation.

"People were bad, there was flood, Noah was good, now there is rainbow."

Yes.

"And you include also the "clean" and "dirty" animals, what is concept known to you currently."

Wait a bit ... what about "and to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?" - How is that priest not risking his life with the rest of the priests?

"And actually it seems, that original story was about pairs of animals and the increased number of clean animals were added later. (Otherwise, Noah would kill of sheeps after the flood by sacrifise, right?)"

God can well have given an extra instruction to that precise purpose after seeing Noah would sacrifice.

"Do we have archeological evidence more supporting flood than non-flood? No, we don't."

We have several biotopes all over the world labelled "Permian" (at least in Russia and in South Africa), "Triassic" and a few more (Permian and Triassic are fairly favourite biotopes with me, bc Permian critters are so ugly and bc I like Karroo).

We also have Neanderthals and Denisovans, purebred, up to the carbon date 40 000 BP and none after that.

With a carbon rise starting with a level of atmospheric 1.4 pmC in 2957 BC (year of Flood in Roman Martyrology for Christmas day), there is no real big problem for 2957 BC being carbon dated 38 000 BC. 1.4 pmC will give the needed 35 000 extra years as instant carbon mirage.

"Do we have biological evidence and other verifiable evidence as support for flood than agains it? Yes, we do."

Would you mind to clarify what you mean and also examplify what you mean by "yes we do".

"But if you want to have Noah's flood as historical, you can have it, because no natural evidence can't be more, than all-powerfull being can't handle."

Is your native language a Slavic one? Double negatives don't cancel out but reinforce?

"From this, it's more probable, that Hebrew used stories from nations around them. Especially, if those nations were occupied or enslaved by other nations around them. They knew their culture and when you wanted to be independent state, it's logical, that you also wanted an independent religion structures."

So precisely for reasons of independence - why copy so much from others?

"About geneaology... there is a lot of geneaology in the Lord of Rings."

There is no boring passage (outside appendices, and such ones put in them for certain reasons) that states "Aragorn, son of Arathorn, son of" etc back to "son of Elros who was son of Eärendil". If there had been, after ten rereads of LotR, I'd be at least half as good at Aragorn's as I am on Jesus' genealogy.

"If you start with today, you can create whatever geneaology you want, if there is no other source of evidence available for other people to fact-check it."

Which precisely there was. Whatever point of OT history you want to accept it starts being actually historic, you have genealogies starting out with those in Genesis 5 and 11 and leading up to people alive back then.

"And to question Bible or Torah.... I would be afraid, that it would be blasphemy. So would you risk your life?"

This is fairly good observation for a Torah already standing, but how do you explain it applies to a single priest adding stories to it and telling people to remember always having heard what they had never heard?

A question also arising for a people having no memory of having survived a Flood suddenly adopting such a "memory".

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Historically the priests were much more powerfull, especially in societies like Egypt. If you were a pharaon, it would not be wise to conduct acts against your priests.

Also, if you look at temples in Mesopotamia, it's is also very expensive building.

Do you consider Egyptians priests to be supported by "real" god? If this "tool" is functional and people are able to consider stories created by those priests to be true, why should be a religion created (supposedly) by ex-egyptian prince different?

Giordano Bruno was burned, because his opinions were against church. Questioning priests were often like questioning gods themselves. It was (and sometimes it still is) a powerfull tool.

There is more problems like population, biology, etc, etc, etc. That's why Noah's flood is considered non-historical by more than 99 % of scientific community. But if you use a wildcard "supernatural being not limited by natural laws", than evidence does not have any value, because "devil can give you false natural evidence", right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec Egyptian priesthood had NOTHING to do with doctrines about the past, but ALL about, at best doctrines of the otherworldly, and at worst just the ceremonies you do in a temple.

"Giordano Bruno was burned, because his opinions were against church."

Yes, but that was 3000 years after I believe Hebrews accepted Genesis as history and 2000 years after you believe they did so.

You cannot project the sociology from 1600 AD to the times of Moses or Ezra!

Plus, you even get it wrong.

"Questioning priests were often like questioning gods themselves."

Giordano Bruno, who was a priest, and Galileo Galilei, who wasn't, had their chances to argue their cases relative to Bible and observable facts. The fact they questioned the opinion of the then (majority of more than 99% of) priests was fairly irrelevant. Giordano believed in one Son and one Holy Ghost per Solar System, and Galileo showed a decided lack of talent connecting Jupiter's four moons to rejecting Tychonic as well as Ptolemaic Geocentrism.

"There is more problems like population, biology, etc, etc, etc. That's why Noah's flood is considered non-historical by more than 99 % of scientific community."

Thank you for acknowledging:

• that there is at least a (less than) 1 % of the scientific community who are Creationist
• that it's the scientific community having, for some reason, an opinion about history.

If you'd be more specific, I'd love to give answers about "more problems like" ....

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The science is ongoing process. It would be a miracle, if 100 % from hundreds of people agreed on anything based on indirect observation and deduction. And existence of opposition is great, because it allows you to test the mainstream.

If 99 from 100 doctors would tell me, that this drug will kill me, but 1 is going to tell me, that he has a faith in God and he sees the drug as a good idea... you can call it "argumentum ad populum", but I will not take that drug. The same with 100 engineers about bridge going to fall. Again, they all could be mistaken, but this could be the case about the 1 engineer with another opinion.

Bruno was killed by Church. That was my point. If God had problem with him, He could call him himself. But as long as I know, we have a ton of prophecs claiming, that God is speaking through them and people killing other people, because God - via priests - told them.

The people are not so different from times of Egypt. In states, where church or religion has the power, it's still connected with power & politics.

People in Egypt build big tombs to help them go to the "other side". Christians today build Temples to help them go to the "other side".

Miracles, if you can't prove them possible, are great evidence of non-historicity. Many things in Old Testament are possible itself for small group, but not in the final story with 2 000 000 people living 40 years in desert. It's a story puzzled from many different stories to create a great narrative.

Of course you can find many archeological evidence, for different pieces. If I write a historical novel, it will be full of things you can confirm archeologically. You can prove Spiderman.... New York & Central Park. Do you know how we (also) know, that Spiderman is not historical? There are no radioactive spiders, who can give you superhuman powers. (But if God exists, he could be real, right?)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "The science is ongoing process. It would be a miracle, if 100 % from hundreds of people agreed on anything based on indirect observation and deduction. And existence of opposition is great, because it allows you to test the mainstream."

Only if you sufficiently heed the opposition.

"If 99 from 100 doctors would tell me, that this drug will kill me, but 1 is going to tell me, that he has a faith in God and he sees the drug as a good idea... you can call it "argumentum ad populum", but I will not take that drug."

This is like you are saying you are not going to heed the opposition, because you deal with all kinds of expertise as with medical cautionary advice. Bad parallel, since believing either on these questions will not kill you, and one which on top of that means, you are going to marginalise instead of heed the opposition.

You know, what drugs are likely to kill and what drugs are likely to cure is a bit more testable by direct experiment than what we are talking about.

"The same with 100 engineers about bridge going to fall. Again, they all could be mistaken, but this could be the case about the 1 engineer with another opinion."

What if 100 engeneers say a bridge will last and one says it will fall? Had an example of that in Italy a few years ago, Genua, as I recall.

"Bruno was killed by Church. That was my point. If God had problem with him, He could call him himself. But as long as I know, we have a ton of prophecs claiming, that God is speaking through them and people killing other people, because God - via priests - told them."

Your nightmare version of social history of religion and power is just that - a nightmare version. You cannot push Inquisition killing back further than them dealing with Albigensians (a sect who were against conception and family, promoted abortion and abandoning family and a few more horrible practises and had de facto taken power in South France or many parts of it).

As long as you know ... well, you are insufficiently knowledgeable about history.

"The people are not so different from times of Egypt."

That's a major howler. If you compare anything to Egyptian priesthood, it's more modern scientists.

"In states, where church or religion has the power, it's still connected with power & politics."

Yes, so? When science and medicine has the power, it will also be connected to power and politics.

"People in Egypt build big tombs to help them go to the "other side". Christians today build Temples to help them go to the "other side"."

That's (and absence of total atheism) is about as far as the similarity goes.

"Miracles, if you can't prove them possible, are great evidence of non-historicity."

It so happens, this is not in any way a discovery made by logic or observation. It's simply a metaphysical a priori postulate.

"Many things in Old Testament are possible itself for small group, but not in the final story with 2 000 000 people living 40 years in desert. It's a story puzzled from many different stories to create a great narrative."

How big was the desert ... Sinai peninsula? 60,000 sqkm. = 60,000,000,000 sqm.
This is 3000 sqm per person. Food and hydration = mannah (a miracle).

Now if you happen to believe miracles are impossible, you will have to conclude Exodus is impossible.

I do not believe miracles are impossible, and I believe Exodus narrative is one proof they have happened and therefore are possible. Because I believe faking that kind of origin would be impossible sociologically and psychologically.

If Israelites in 1000 BC emerged from Canaanites and had no background in anything like Exodus, they would be very hard set to accept that story as sth they had always remembered.

"Of course you can find many archeological evidence, for different pieces. If I write a historical novel, it will be full of things you can confirm archeologically. You can prove Spiderman.... New York & Central Park. Do you know how we (also) know, that Spiderman is not historical? There are no radioactive spiders, who can give you superhuman powers. (But if God exists, he could be real, right?)"

Spiderman is more about how evolution is impossible, and therefore why God is necessary. Radiooactivity withy or without spider bite will probably mutate you, but to cancer, not to superpowers.

We both know that Spiderman is not one text of history and was always received as an infinitely updatable corpus of fiction texts. We also know this is not how ancient people saw Exodus - within the audience, that is.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, you would need God for Spiderman to exists. Radioactive spiders can't change your genetical code, especially in a way described in the comics.

Bridge in Genoa... I don't know, how many relevant studies there were. But from wiki page it seems, that there was a series of problems with that bridge.

If Israelites in 1000 BC emerged from Canaanites and had no background in anything like Exodus, they would be very hard set to accept that story as sth they had always remembered.

Mormons believe, that their prophet communicate with an angel... And they take it as real history.

If I compare two scenarios:

• a) a new kingdom created in power vacuum created its religion to legitimise itself and unify it's people to cut-off foreigh priests created it's own history book in age, where there was no available history books. And they used already existing stories (edited to fit their narrative), they also used other stories from desert...
  
  
• b) there were a set of impossible events (enabled by God's support) percisely recorded in Old Testament....

I must go with - maybe improbable a), because b) is impossible (and also does not make me sense).

a) is quite natural. Propaganda is nothing new in the world. Nazi germany worked with semi-truth quite skillfully.

And a) is possible also if God exists. Because if God can cause impossible (naturalistically) impossible events, than God can cause improbable scenarious - as forming new nation from tribes with help of new religion).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Bridge in Genoa... I don't know, how many relevant studies there were. But from wiki page it seems, that there was a series of problems with that bridge."

Very possible, but it still seems the majority of experts were not shouting to authorities in Genoa to shut the bridge down for car traffic.

"Mormons believe, that their prophet communicate with an angel... And they take it as real history."

I take it as real history he claimed it. They take it as real history his communications were without witnesses other than Joseph Smith, precisely as Muslims take it as real history Mohammed claimed revelations, and yet none of them except he ever saw Jibreel.

"created it's own history book in age, where there was no available history books."

What about memory?

Like, even if no one had a history book which said sth else than Moses, if he hadn't existed, how did he get accepted as not just having existed, but even having been remembered all of the time?

"And they used already existing stories (edited to fit their narrative), they also used other stories from desert..."

That leaves you to explain what was in these already existing stories - and how they came about.

If we suppose Flood is as described in Genesis and that post-Flood events concerned with all mankind up to Babel happened as described in Genesis, lots of neighbouring peoples' stories are easily explained by that story pre-existing, and someone saying "no, you tell it wrong, Utnapishtim didn't get drunk!" or "no, there was not just one God both sending and warning about the Flood : Enlil sent it, Enki warned Utnapishtim". So, what exact previous stories do you propose to explain the Exodus story? What exact changes do you propose?

"because b) is impossible (and also does not make me sense)."

As to "impossible" that is materialistic metaphysical prejudice. You have no observation to back "impossible" up.

"a) is quite natural."

Only if you can show an easily obtained story which could be changed with a few strokes to give the Exodus one - or the Babel one, or the Flood one.

"Nazi germany worked with semi-truth quite skillfully."

Communist Russia and East Block even more skilfully.

"And a) is possible also if God exists."

It seems impossible if human memory exists.

"Yes, you would need God for Spiderman to exists"

No, I would need the impossible views on how mutations can improve organisms accepted by earlier Evolutionists for Spiderman to at least approximate sth existing. God being a God of order wouldn't do it.

"than God can cause improbable scenarious - as forming new nation from tribes with help of new religion"

The problem is not with a religion being new, it is with a religion imposing, while new, on people to remember a past they never had.

Update(s)

John Makovec

[several comments]

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, aliens do exists, Elvis Presley is alive and we are controlled by Lizard people....

Because how would otherwise be possible for such stories to be created.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Mutations can have positive, neutral, negative effect. We have natural selection to discard negative.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Human memory is just particles in the brain. So it's easier to give someone false memories of resurrection, then ressurect someone.

If resurrection of 3 day old dead body is possible, than gave few people false memories is easier. And I skipped all ways how stories are enhanced when told from people to people.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And as long as you can't demonstrate, that God taking through bush is possible (this can be explained by mental disorder), we have many people with mental disorders, but no bush with taking God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "Sure, aliens do exists, Elvis Presley is alive and we are controlled by Lizard people.... Because how would otherwise be possible for such stories to be created."

I am sorry, but this is not to the point.

"Mutations can have positive, neutral, negative effect. We have natural selection to discard negative."

If by "positive" you mean "good", OK. In some situations changing or losing a function is good. If by "positive" you mean "adding new functions" - no, that has never been observed.

"Human memory is just particles in the brain. So it's easier to give someone false memories of resurrection, then ressurect someone."

There is a limit to how many people can be manipulated to false memories at a time. Or as to how fast you can do it.

No, it is not easier to give someone false memories. You don't control someone else's memories any more than you control dead bodies.

God can control both (by the way, changing linguistic side of memories isn't exactly false memories, but it does change the language competence and therefore does change the language he speaks, this is about Tower of Babel).

"And I skipped all ways how stories are enhanced when told from people to people."

Yeah, you skipped, because going into detail on this one doesn't serve your purpose.

Name one way and show how it could apply.

[new comment]

A man with a mental disorder won't be able to divide the Red Sea for his people. Missed your last one.

[new comment]

Wait, I think I saw your point ...

"aliens do exists,"

Demons pose as aliens.

"Elvis Presley is alive"

Or has lookalikes.

"and we are controlled by Lizard people...."

Or the people known to have more or less control have struck Icke as horrible enough to be such. Satire.

In other words, how stories originate is not as haphazard or anything goes as you pretend.

John Makovec

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Stories enhanced when told from people to people... legends... literaryterms(dot)net/legend/

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Also, if you are a story teller, you can use a first-person narrative. "A first-person narrative is a mode of storytelling or a peripheral narrator in which a storyteller recounts events from their own point of view using the first person i.e. "I" or "we", etc."

If one story teller takes a story from another person, then he can change it to fit his way of story telling. He can take the core story, but enhance it. Make it more funny, etc.

Sometimes we can call it "The size of your fish getting bigger every time you tell the story. TFM."

Also, there is an effect, where by repeating the same story without paper, you actually change it in your mind...

"We change our memories each time we recall them, but that doesn’t mean we’re lying"

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If you want an example of positive mutation, google "Neofunctionalization".

Also, you have new strains of viruses. Those mutations are definitely benefitial for the viruses, because it helps it to spread better. Because those are simple organisms (or even non-living), the mutation rate is greater and you can observe it in the nature in real-time.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl For omnipotent being able to resurrect people, there is no limit how that being can change someone's brain.

So if there is an omnipotent being, it's possible, that this being added false memories.

If we presume an omnipotent being able to interact with us and reorganize brain after 3 days of decay, we actually can't reject this possibility.

Actually, if this being has only one power (or use only one power) - to change memory of people - we can better explain the Bible. And it explains, why model of history created by observing nature accepted by 99 % of people who study relevant fields does not fit Biblical story.

2 000 000 people living 40 years in the desert? Easy... it's just 2 000 and someone change their memory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John Makovec "there is no limit how that being can change someone's brain."

Except his truthfulness.

Changing the linguistic aspect of every one's every single memory at Babel was no lie : He didn't change what they remembered, just in what language they remembered it.

You do not have an omnipotent being at your disposal and you cannot claim brains could change indefinitely.

Your view about legends is less useful than mine, you are not anyway near as expert in the field as I.

Neofunctionalisation has not been observed to create new cell types or new organs.

Virus strains don't get new functions, just new traits that once again help to elude immune systems.

You haven't observed any virus getting the equipment to actually reproduce itself.

You haven't observed any virus getting DNA (or sth else superior to just RNA, which is their common fare).

"Actually, if this being has only one power (or use only one power) - to change memory of people - we can better explain the Bible."

I get it, you prefer a near omnipotent (in one field) deceiver, a k a an omnipotent devil, over an omnipotent actually benevolent GOd.

"And it explains, why model of history created by observing nature accepted by 99 % of people who study relevant fields does not fit Biblical story."

Observing nature does not give rise to any model of history ever.

That they accept a wrong model based on Hume diminishes their credibility on "relevant fields".

"2 000 000 people living 40 years in the desert? Easy... it's just 2 000 and someone change their memory."

And "just 2000" conquer Canaan just how after the desert?

John Makovec didn't answer the last one. I'll refer to Lycodichthys dearborni for neofunctionalisation : it seems a new proteine with antifreeze function came by gene duplication and one gene assuming a new role, but there is only one other Lycodichthys species, I don't know if it has the same antifreeze function, but it is also in the antarctic, so one can ask if dearborni gained or antarcticus lost or if it is common to both. As to general reliability of witnesses, CMI had an excellent article: Countering the Assault on Eyewitnesses, by Paul Price.

https://creation.com/eyewitness-testimony

First Half of Suris' and Paulogia's Take on CMI

Creation Ministries says Bible is INERRANT! We Don't Think So! (Ft. Paulogia)
Suris | 26.II.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwycVywZNWg

Suris and Paulogia are two Atheists I like to go to refute (both already have posts marked with labels referring to them), and CMI one of my favourite resources (though more often articles appearing as posts). So, this one is a must to me. Most of my comments are from 7 months back, a few from today. This is one of the videos which I stopped more than once a minute to comment on.

Intro to this video session : I am not a fan of CMI's Protestant theology or their views on Church history after the writing of the last Bible book, but every time they restrict themselves to defending Biblical inerrancy, I am a fan. Not uncritical, I sometimes think I have better solutions myself, but a fan.

4:32 Buildings ... those are not just about truth. They are about sth functioning.

Now, a channel for truth may be one thing that needs to function also ... let's stay on the secular side for now, and take a library.

If it has books on Latin, it may be an asset if they don't do the "second Latin" certain Irish monks introduced into their grammar of the first Latin, in that intro where they enumerate how many "Latins" there are (they seem to have thought of Latin as a kind of code language, and, given that, there were obviously other ones than what they called "first Latin" and the rest of us call "Latin"). I mean if a language calls "man" "giber" it is more likely to be Hebrew than Latin ... and in fact, the Latin grammar may be a bit better off for not using those Irish monks' grammmar of the first Latin, since "vocaminor" is not exactly the correct second person plural passive of "voco". Or if it was "vocaminur" ... the correct form is supposed to be "vocamini" ...

If it has books on chemistry, it may be useful if these include the table of Mendeleiev.

If it has books on physics, it may be useful if these are divided into Newtonian, Relativistic and Quantum approaches, so you don't get a lecture in Quantum physics when you just wanted to know how to draw vectors.

Plus, the building should be able to keep the books dry, if these are made of paper.

Plus, given there are many books, the personnel should be able to tell you where a book is, and put a returned book or one left in the seats back into the correct shelf ...

4:41 straw man? ... well, the thing is, the kind of truths that the Bible and Catholic Church (that second is a subject where they are somewhat weak) are supposed to teach - like who God is, like how we go to Heaven - are also truths that need careful transmission, which are as badly decided by personal hunch as if you wanted to decide by personal hunch what atom number Oxygen has ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:25 The Pentateuch has one main human author for the final (or only slightly updated) version of each book : Moses.

Exceptions would be:

• 1) Joshua writing last chapter of Deuteronomy
• 2) Moses using shorter texts that were his sources for Genesis
• 3) his brother Aaron's descendants sometimes (perhaps) updating terminology, like names of places.

As many as 38? Bad guesses by people who find Mosaic authorship too irksome when it comes to avoiding the conclusion it's also the word of God (and actually primarily so).

anAccountMustHaveAName

How do you know? The books themselves don't claim to be written by him. Or anybody for that matter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@anAccountMustHaveAName No, but a series of "librarians", Cohanim from his brother Aaron to Caiaphas, and Christian clergy from 12 Apostles to our times, claim it for the books.

6:31 There is exactly one epistle of St Paul for which ancients have given an alternative author : Hebrews. Some have thought it was instead by St. Barnabas.

Eliminating for instance "Catholic epistles" - I and II to Timothy plus the one to Titus - is wishful thinking by Protestants (and some of them modernists too) who don't like the idea Catholic clergy was there in the time of St. Paul or Jesus Himself obsiously. Because clergy is exactly what these epistles are describing.

It's a bit how someone might imagine new age started out with Hippies in the 60's and Findhorn Foundation came later. On the contrary, Findhorn was beginning in late fifties. It's the hippies that came later.

Similarily for Christianity, the start was not unstructured groups of a purely charismatic or anarchic type of spirituality.

6:59 Has it occurred to anyone that all we have heard of Harry Potter so far since the first novel was published has been it is fiction, while the first known reception of Pentateuch and Kings was, it is history, and dito for Gospels and Acts?

7:12 St. Luke took a woman for his source to chapter 1.

A Very Important Woman. Whose words, like those of Her cousin Mrs Cohen were inspired by God.

7:23 Neither Rowling herself, nor any Church she belongs or belonged to has recognised her Harry Potter as being co-authored by God. At least so significantly as to make it inerrant.

Nor has any of these three entities claimed it is even factual history.

8:16 Good that the automatic subtitles had "in Aaron" for "inerrant".

Makes the point that the algorithm for transforming sound bites to letters are unintelligent as well as very errant, and also makes the point that inerrancy and divine authorship of a book is not just assumed by author and any and every man in his audience, it is determined "in Aaron" - by clergy, Cohanic for OT, Apostolic for NT.

8:34 "whether or not there are errors"

Let's go back to the library.

A good librarian won't accept a book that contains blatant errors. A perfect librarian, if this were humanly possible, would not accept books containing errors, without cautioning, for instance if a French language Language course for Swedish claims Swedish "U" is pronounced like French "U" ... when long Swedish "U" is like Liverpudlian "OO". Indeed, the perfect librarian of a fact conveying library would weed out all errors in any books.

We do not just count on God being main author behind human authors known as hagiographers, but also main librarian behind the librarians known as clergy.

So, "what determines" is a bit ambiguous.

It can specifically refer to either formal or efficient cause in this case, and when you say "whether it contains errors" you refer to formal cause and when we say "God is ultimate author" we refer to efficient cause.

Obviously, in order for efficient cause to actually be one for inerrancy (as authorship by an all knowing and all truthful God is), it needs to cause what you consider the formal cause of it, namely not in fact containing any error.

This means, your search for errors is a great test.

10:32 Yes, exactly, reality is a kind of arbiter on whether or not a purported claim of divine authorship and resulting inerrancy can stand or not.

8:46 Your being able to write a mathematical proof without error is a fine point in favour of human authors not of necessity blocking the divine authorship which result in an inerrant text.

Moses could be in error, but not while writing on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, like you can be in error but aren't when writing your mathematical proof.

In your case, the very limited inerrancy is due to your grasp of mathematics and that proof being within uncontroversial parts of mathematics (it can't involve 0 being a number, for instance), in his case due to his relation to God.

9:04 Genetic fallacy is not always involved in evaluating a truth claim according to source.

For instance, in history, we do want to know that the ultimate source is or at least can be a contemporary to events and so on.

In chemistry, that a lab report is by one who witnessed the experiment.

9:28 No, inerrancy is the main controversial claim of the show, but not the main point in each episode, which deals more in how the purported inerrancy stands up to such and such a claim of purported error.

10:15 No, CMI are NOT King James-onlyists.

While they prefer Masoretic timeline of Genesis 5 and 11 over LXX timeline, they are fairly different from King-James-onlyists.

11:42 The Bible nowhere says that the sacrifice of dove blood cures leprosy, it does state it is applied on a case of leprosy already cured, to ritually make the passage to an existence as a clean person again.

If all leprosy needed to be cured were dove blood, one would quickly find out it wasn't so.

When Jesus cured lepers, there was one priest who was surprised at having to make that sacrifice.

12:43 You have met plenty of Christians who have been caught between two fires, and dared oppose neither.

The existence of this anecdotic evidence does not really obfuscate their point.

13:39 But you accept things on authority all the time.

I just accepted the existence of Harriet Tubman solely on authority of history pointing to her existence and acts.

Btw, Paulogia, if someone who is slightly androgynic becomes homosexual or transgender, I'll suspect he was in too machist company, and couldn't accept himself as a man or herself as a woman based on that.

And if someone does your move, I may suspect that authority being drilled into him all the time is one possible explanation and half and half excuse.

I am still a fundie, because in my case it wasn't so drilled into me.

14:37 There is a passage which says one must obey the laws of the prince unless they are at odds with God's law.

There are plenty of passages pointing to situations where one obeying God must either ask things of himself others do not ask of themselves, or of each other or of him, or even oppose what others ask of him.

16:41 Feel free to apply the hostile witness principle when someone next time is citing an Evolutionist who is also a scientist, but a scientist hired with the tacit understanding he remain an Evolutionist, against a Creationist claim ...

17:08 While the Bible is the ultimate authority, they have a thing against circular reasoning.

Now, the fact is, I'd say Bible, Tradition, Magisterium, not Bible alone, but the guys were not in fact trying to prove the authority of the Bible in that phrase, but to prove the importance of the issue.

18:08 "is the book correct"

Note he was arguing "for Christians" where above question would already be answered in affirmative.

18:21 "if I don't assume it is correct in the first place, can I come to the conclusion it is correct?"

I will not subject myself to the psychological experiment of being a non-believer again, but I can go through logical steps that logically should convince some.

• 1) The Bible makes claims.
• 2) Certain communities make the claim the Bible or (for Jews and Protestants) parts of it are in part God's instructions on good living and in part also correct history of how the community came to know God well enough to state such a thing.
• 3) The way we decide historical claims is usually the claims of the communities concerned.

You could try to wiggle out of premiss 3 either by referring to my non-belief in Mormon claims, but the historical fact is about the same whether Joseph Smith actually had gold plates from angels or only claimed that - he alone witnessed this and he used this claim he alone witnessed to get others to believe the statements purportedly translated from gold plates in Nephites' texts in Reformed Egyptian.

Then, you could also claim, we don't usually believe Iliad, Odyssey or Aeneid - my point is, we should, on the historic, not theological side.

Again, you could try to make it out historical claims of the Bible could be true even without its theology being true. Not so if bona fide 5000 people saw a multiplication of breads and fishes. Or if women past climacterium and a virgin got pregnant.

18:56 Here CMI are in trouble by citing the heretic John McArthur as an authority ON Scripture.

As I pointed out to them here:

CMI is Bad on Church History
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/02/cmi-is-bad-on-church-history.html

Under II, time signature of their video 6:27.

19:55 "if you don't accept the Bible as inerrant as your presupposition, the Bible appears very illogical"

No, if you don't accept atheism and anti-miraculism as your presuppositions, it doesn't.

If I ever had the shame to apostasise, I'd feel shame on some non-Christians trying to prove "illogical traits" that aren't there in the Bible or aren't illogical.

Like the one who claimed pi disproves a passage about temple vessels, as if the two measures of the object were measuring the same geometric circle with the string ...

21:18 Basic on applied maths : apples and oranges are not counted together.

There is one example of the divine nature, and that one example is the nature of each of three persons, so there are three examples of persons having that nature.

Nature does not equal person.

But thanks for the nod to Ahmed Deedat!

22:54 Their whole ministry - much of which I enjoy - exists bc others deny that the Bible is to be understood normally (I agree at least for Biblical history).

It also exists, bc people like you pretend some of the things so understood to be disproven.

To disprove your disproofs.

Corey C

Right. But, warping , hiding, ignoring, or misrepresenting the facts isn't supporting or helping to "understand". It's a deception (intentional or not) to support their view.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Corey C It is a bit odd, that if Suris or Paulogia wanted to denounce that, they still should avoid the most obvious way to do so, for at least about the first half of the video (second remains to be watched).

This very obvious way, which has been avoided first part of the video is : take on Bible fact, confront it with a real fact, see how CMI warps, hides, ignores or misrepresents real fact to defend Bible fact.

My gut feeling is, they have perhaps taken a look at more than one examples, and concluded, they were not really able to, against CMI, hold up any real fact as opposed to a Bible fact.

24:57 Paulogia : "postmodernism [...?] is not the reason why the Bible is demonstrated incorrect"

No, but there is a certain post-modernist hint in the mentality which accepts both CHristianity as true in some loose sense while also pretending the Bible is "demonstrated" incorrect...

Take confort in one thing, Suris, I am no fan of Jordan Peterson, if these guys had had his attitude of psychological condescension, I could not have been following them on a daily basis.

Most of their episodes and written posts are on the format : "atheists typically consider the Bible as demonstrated incorrect on the matter of ... [often related to Evolution and Deep time] ... but this is why the facts of ... [the matter] ... do not demonstrate the Bible incorrect / or does demonstrate the evolution believers incorrect".

Speaking of this, so far neither the video by CMI, nor the answers by Suris and Paulogia, have been concentrating on this very typical CMI format. No factual claim of the Bible defended by CMI that Suris and Paulogia then tried to demolish. Perhaps second half?

26:27 "in every video I have done on them"

Wait, do you say you have other videos than this on CMI?

Sth where you actually get into some defined subject matter where you disagree with them on whether Bible fact matches actual fact?

Oh, yeah, one about Sarfati, two about "creationists say the darndest things" ...

CMI is Bad on Church History

Ghosts · Bible and Fantasy (quora) · CMI is Bad on Church History · Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half with Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post

Commenting on first half / third of this video:

Why should we trust the Bible? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-22)
CMIcreationstation | 1.I.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYueUl6ENYU

I stopped before the pause announced at 11:33.

I

2:15 Are the words Christ told the 72 in Luke 10:16 still valid for a special clergy within the believers?

I mean, you do admit the 72 constituted a clergy, I hope? Christ had chosen them from among other believers.

If they are, then you can also say "when the Church speaks, God speaks". (Unless you are Arians denying the divinity of Christ, but so far I have no indication of that).

II

6:27 Unfortunately the John McArthur whom you cite is classifying some Biblical truths as myths.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : John MacArthur Confusing Sunworship with Sun as a Person
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/01/john-macarthur-confusing-sunworship.html

Also unfortunately, he is attacking the Church to which Christ spoke Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:16-20.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering John MacArthur, I
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/12/answering-john-macarthur-i.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering John MacArthur, II
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/12/answering-john-macarthur-ii.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering John MacArthur, III
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/01/pope-papacy-part-3-john-macarthur.html

So, I must presume he holds human traditions from Reformers and "Awakenings" above some Scriptural Truth.

III

Up to 8:42

Postmodernism is:

• "based on the faulty idea that truth cannot be known" - in fact, some post-modernist discoveries about history only lead to this via the prejudice that truth is supposed to be modernist.
  
  They are very right that Modernism, including the modernism of Reformation and of Awakenings, cannot be known. So, if that's where you place truth, it means "truth cannot be known". But if you read the exact same discoveries about history with the plan truth can be known, they lead to, truth is not modernist. Which is perfectly correct.
  
  
• "it's arrogant to say truth can be known" - have I heard this one from Protestants!
  
  Some people make "Bible the final umpire" very pro forma, and if Bible leads to Catholic truth, Protestants say one cannot know the truth, since the Bible passage is not interpreted the same by everyone.
  
  Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24. Most Protestants, though not Lutherans and not all Anglicans.
  Hebrews 13:10, Malachias (Malachi) 1:11 - denied by all Protestants.
  
  But the idea anyone and everyone who reads the Bible has a right to his opinion whatever it may be on what it means is also per se a very early bird of the post-modernist bird swarm that picks grains from the ground.
  
  
• "Opposed to truth claims of the Bible" - Protestantism is that, especially that in Matthew 28:16-20.
• "Features pluralism and tolerance" - Protestantism does that, since it claims there is no single Church with more authority than any other Church.
• Intolerant of intolerance - Protestantism is that.

Christ alone verse being John 14:6 - note that Christ does not exclude the clergy He has chosen or the Sacraments He is instituting any more than the Gospels containing His words. He is excluding alternative ways.

"People affected by post-modernism have a significant hurdle to overcome, if they are to understand reality."

And people affected by Modernism may have an even more significant one.

IV

8:47
"Truth
"= reality
"= the way things really are."

Well, that is one level of truth. Truth in the things. Next level of truth is truth in the "observing" (and classifying and concluding etc) mind:

Truth
= adequation of thought to reality.

And the third level of truth is truth in truthful speech:

Truth or truthfulness
= speaking as one thinks and not opposed to what one thinks.

V

9:30 "By AD 250 near consensus on 66 books."

Sorry - this is a blatant lie. The Bible canon which gives only the OT that Protestantism accepts was first given at Council of Laodicaea - and it has an NT canon without the Apocalypse.

You have then an NT canon as per today in Rome and Carthage, also 4th C. But these also agree at least nominally on the canon of the Catholics as to OT. When I say "at least nominally" I am aware some have claimed "1st and 2nd Maccabees" = 1+2 and 3+4 Maccabees (i e include two sequels to 2nd Maccabess), as per Orthodox Bibles. And that "1st and 2nd Ezra" (usually taken as Ezra and Nehemia or Orthodox "2nd and 3rd Ezra") really are 1st (Orthodox) and 2+3 Ezra (i e, include a prequel to Ezra and Nehemia).

But you cannot claim that the OT canon in Rome and Carthage was Protestant. And you can hardly claim there was a stated OT canon at 250.

VI

9:52 The "what does the Church think the text means" is very firmly rooted in the NT.

Luke 24:45 states Christ gave two disciples some OT exegesis that showed all of OT to be about Himself. How can we access Christ's OT exegesis? By the Church.
John 5:39 states Christ told Pharisees to scrutinise OT, and realise it was about Him.

Obviously, their descendants to this day has an OT exegesis which does not realise this, and they are not necessarily bunglers about the literal meaning of what the author of an OT books said. At least not all the time.

In other words, there is more to OT exegesis than just plain understanding of the text, and the Church knows more (since back then it saw more) of how Christ's life fitted with this, than what is available from Gospels and Epistles alone.

The "Rise of Catholicism" some time after "Early Christianity" (somehow not yet Catholic) is a spurious event, which never happened. And the supposed two different rules are in fact one complimentary rule.

VII

9:57 "that was easy to do, because no one held a Bible; Bibles were locked up and unavailable"

You just placed "rise of Catholicism" in c. 1220's and as an event affecting mainly France, Spain and England.

As a statement of how things were in the time of St. Gregory, it is actually worthless.

I thank post-modernist historians for not faking history as much as Protestant historians.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : History Forger James Aitken Wylie
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/12/history-forger-james-aitken-wylie.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : To give you an idea of Wylie's proceedings ...
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/12/to-give-you-idea-of-wylies-proceedings.html

And, as you basically nearly cited the infamous "The Forbidden Book" here are a few refutations against it by me:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answers about "The Forbidden Book"
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2013/01/answers-about-forbidden-book.html

VIII

10:12 "William Tyndale is a key figure in Church History who changed that."

Overall? No. For England, where even possessing a Bible or religious text in English had been decided on as a sign of Lollardry, probably yes. But England is NOT the Church universal.

10:32 "One Church official said he would rather have the Church's laws than God's laws."

Which one? In what context? Was he speaking of OT law, like stoning of adulterers? You don't say. So far.

"If God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plough to know more of Scripture than you do."

According to what biography of Tyndale?

As to the effect of that brag, in Franco's Spain, teaching Evolution was outlawed, or so I have heard, while in an England heir to Tyndale nearly everyone was Evolutionist by the end of World War I.

IX

10:51 "Translating the Bible into English, which was illegal" (in England it was that, actually, unless done by previous agreement by Church authorities, so Douay Rheims version did not actually flout English law on this point).


"And ultimately cost him his life." - Indirectly, yes, since he fled England over the translation, ultimately no, since the Spanish Inquisitor in Flanders was very much less interested in an English Bible translation (who spoke English in Flanders back then?) than in how Tyndale interpreted Romans 3.

I think even Tyndale Society, dedicated to his memory, has admitted this.

And what was the name of the Inquisitor again? James Latomus. He had better things to say about Romans 3 than Tyndale had.

11:04 That Tyndale was strangled before the burning, so the burning was more of a symbol to others than torture to him is credible. That his body was then blown apart by gunpowder is perhaps less so, since already the burning would have made it impossible to give him a decent Christian burial (heretics and suicides were not given such).

Where do you have that detail from?

X

11:28 "There is no doubt that by his monumental work, Tyndale changed the course of English history and Western civilisation"

This is the kind of things where a historian as a historian is no more authoritative than a hack as a hack. OK, the historian might exclude some of the more obviously false things, but this does not narrow down "meaning of history" (as opposed to recorded events, one by one) to one possibility only.

But whether you put it down to Tyndale and Petri brothers and Agricola (for Bible in English, Swedish, Finnish) or to Gustav Wasa wanting to sell Church bells to pay mercenaries or Henry VIII wanting so "marry" Anne Boleyn, there is no doubt this landed us with 30 Years War, French Wars of Religion, English Revolution, with Cromwell also oppressing Ireland, Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, French Revolution, Revolution of 1848, Revolutions of 1917 (Mexico and Russia) and therefore schools that endorse the teaching of Evolution.

On my part that is. You try to make a case these things don't belong together. Because, this is not a question of historic fact. It is a question of "meaning of history".

I think it is a fact that Revolution of 1848 was in part at least inspired by that of 1789 with following years. And so on about each Revolution from previous one, and English Revolution from Covenanters and Puritans. And these obviously paying their homage to Tyndale. But if you want to insert one point on which my fact is a factoid, try it.

Human and Divine : Hagiographers and Popes

First part of this video:

The Bible: Word of God or word of man? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-21)
CMIcreationstation | 10.VII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQN97WpodE

I

1:59 Fortunately the Catholic Church already made a judgement at Trent that all of the 73 books in the Vulgate are canonic, god-breathed and to be taken as the Church Fathers read them.

Otherwise, she would perhaps have had the authority to make that kind of judgement, as she had to decide what books are in the Bible.

Now, as St Matthew's Gospel cannot any longer be deleted from the canon, the divine authorship of all 73 books can no longer be deleted from dogma.

II

4:10 Actually, the ten commandments have Moses at least for copyist.

For any given part of Genesis except chapter 1, I'd say triple authorship : the man who wrote or dictated the account when it happened, Moses, and above the two God, excluding errors from the original account and from that transmission version Moses chose from. (Chapter 1 was given as a vision to Moses, according to tradition, and 1:28 was displaced from Adam's or Eve's chapter 2 account to Moses' own six days account, own under God, that is).

III

5:47 Each biblical author certainly erred about some fact some time in his life.

If you had asked Moses "what did you eat for breakfast yesterday" excluding the period when the one uniform answer was mannah, on one occasion he would have erred in the answer.

However, God could clearly fix it so that his errors did not coincide with his writing of any book of Moses.

Precisely as Popes are men prone to error and sin like the rest of us, but God can fix it so this never coincides with when they make an infallible decree on dogma (like 1854 Pope Pius IX).

Note, while this ability of God is identical, the use is different in so far as new doctrines could be revealed up to Christ, while, after the last apostle died, no new doctrine can be revealed, only interpretations of already existing doctrine be infallibly expressed in the manner of solemn judgement.

6:07 God has no need to be roughshod to actually effectively protect a Biblical author or a Pope on task expressing error as to what he is supposed to write, in a Bible book, or in a Bull.

6:28 Piano analogy is fairly useful for Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich - God talked to her in her solitude, and not directly for our edification, but for hers, and when she was asked by someone to tell what she had been given, she may have confused some. I particularly suppose this of her view of pre-Babel language. She can have overheard a priest or a doctor (she lay in bed) speaking about Bopp's theories of Indo-European unity.

Now, in Catholic doctrine, not just a papal bull or a bible book, but even a prophetess (charged to speak with others, like St. Bridget of Vadstena) must be, for that purpose "a perfect instrument".

IV

7:46 I'm very allergic to "Divine Accomodation" which Swedish Church clergy (Lutherans) back in the 19th C. pushed on the exorcisms of Our Lord.

They did not blaspheme on Our Lord being wrong due to kenosis pushed that far, one reason why I don't think even Joshua was wrong on what is usually moving each day (cfr his words 10:12), but they did blaspheme His truthfulness, claiming He accomodated by a kind of "white lie".

CMI Took on Nephelim (Mostly Good)

Who were the Nephilim? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-14)
CMIcreationstation | 26.IX.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwGnbbbRTMo

I

11:21 I'll have to disagree with the following assessment:

"There is nothing to suggest that Seth's line was any more pious than anybody else"

There is.

• 1) Seth replaced Abel, whom God had shown forth as righteous in accepting his sacrifice.
• 2) Noah came from Seth's lineage.
• 3) Noah was not just perfect, but "perfect in his lineage". If it is not genetic, it must mean "a pious man from a pious lineage".
• 4) From Adam to Noah is 10 generations. From Adam to last named Cainite clear "monarch" Lamech, let's count:
  
  
  • 1) Adam
  • 2) Cain
  • 3) Henoch
  • 4) Irad
  • 5) Maviael
  • 6) Mathusael
  • 7) Lamech
  
  
  only seven. Why? I suggest that the Cainite lineage was broken off before the Flood, not entirely, but as a power to be reckoned with, because it was evil and produced evil.

I'd say that Tubal-Cain's and Jabel's children are known in rather good detail to Hindoos, as Kauravas and Pandavas. This would make Jubal a candidate for identify of Krishna (whom Hindoos misconstrue as a god, as an avatar of the upholder of the universe, of what's his name ... anyway, they are wrong).

I'd also say, both the shorter version of the Cainite story in Genesis 4 and the longer (but garbled) one in Mahabharata are derived from Tubal-Cain's sister Noema marrying Cham. And I would also say Hindoos are Chamites, more precisely Chushites, more precisely descended of Regma.

Either way, there is a fairly clear suggestion that sth went wrong with Cainites not just at the start, but at the end.

II

11:53 In the days of Noah, the piety was in the Sethite line reduced to a handful.

A bit like Catholicism is the true Church, but there are not 2 billion Catholics who clearly believe both Genesis 1 to 11 and Joshua X, as a Catholic should.

Those of us who are both Geocentric and Young Earth Creationist seem more like reduced to not quite as few as Noah, with family, but still few.

Ever wondered why Noah's children, those who survive, were born when he was 500 years old?

I don't think he had delayed puberty. But I do think he could have either lost earlier children or been long stopped - by other Sethites who were by then nearly as impious as Cainites - from marrying. See I Timothy 4:3 and recall Our Lord's words "as in the days of Noah".

III

14:32 "the practises of channeling, automatic writing, and perhaps even alien abduction experiences are forms of demonic possession"

Channeling doctrines of demons or automatic writing of sth demonic (even if very subtly so) yes, but one could speak of "channeling" also of God's prophets and St John is credited with writing the Gospel in automatic writing with both hands going on at the same time.

So, channeling and automatic writing is not always so.

Obviously, it is sometimes so, as when Sibyl's channeling Apollo ... see Aeneid VI for a parallel to the poor girl whom St Paul freed from that kind of demon.

Abduction would not be, if demonic, possession, except when experience of penetration is involved, but obsession : demon's getting in your way.

If a demon makes you shout blasphemies you forget as soon as it is over, you are possessed.

If a demon makes noise with pots and pans in your kitchen, you are obsessed (under siege) by demons.*

And if a demon lifts up your body to some other place, well Satan himself did that to Christ (Matthew 4 / Luke 4) and Our Lord was obviously not possessed.

Hence, alien abduction is not per se demonic possession.

By the way, I have been abducted in another way a few decades ago, and the shrink or one of them suggested I was "channeling" when in fact I most definitely was not.

Let's not get too paranoid of possession with people who have just met demons, besides, I am not sure all aliens are in fact demons.

Souls of unbaptised infants are enjoying natural happiness, such as a man without God's grace could have in a happy day on earth, and part of that could be playing innocent pranks on those who live. Note, I said innocent, not sure how many contactees could safely say that, but I think there might be some.

* There was a convent in Spain, and one of the younger religious was so pious, twice she could drive the Poltergeist demon away with just a Hail Mary or three Hail Mary. She lived just before the Civil War and predicted which one of her superiors would be martyred by the Reds. Sor Eusebia Palomino Yenes (pray for us).

IV

16:36 It may be noted that the Nephelim were perhaps not very smart, certainly not wise.

Baruch 3:[26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

Note, it can be noted that its says "through their folly" and not "in the Flood" so this suggests, Nephelim had dug their own grave by their folly before the Flood.

You know the story of Kaurava kings gaining Draupadi in a gambling game, and how when she wanted to be faithful to her husband, he got her clothes torn off, they were replaced by other clothes miraculously?

Well, a guy who is morally able to do that kind of thing is not very wise.

You noted nephelim are always spoken of in masculine. It could be banal, as in masculine plural is the grammatical form for mixed gender groups as well as purely male ones, but it could also be, the damning influence was attached to Y chromosomes (I note that Neanderthal Y chromosomes are not found in the modern post-Flood world, even if your friend Robert Carter would explain that by them and us descending from different fractions of Babelic population). (Btw, not saying Neanderthals were nephelim, but also not excluding it, they could have had some speech handicaps).

I think a follow up comment was deleted, in which I was admitting there were other passages arguing my reasoning above was wrong, that they perished for the stupidity of not going on the Ark: "And from the beginning also when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world fleeing to a vessel, which was governed by thy hand, left to the world seed of generation." [Wisdom 14:6] "The ancient giants did not obtain pardon for their sins, who were destroyed trusting to their own strength:" [Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 16:8] Wonder who deleted it ....

V

20:36 Noting that the ark of Salvation is in fact the Church which Christ founded.

VI

27:40 It so happens, Lita referred to Gary's appendix.

Here he says post-Flood nephelim cannot descend from pre-Flood nephelim.

In a straight line of male nephelim only descending on the male line, no.

But some non-nephelim women who descend from nephelim, could be. This is at least one of Rob Skiba's takes on that affair.

If we look at Neanderthals and Denisovans, they seem at times to have practised cannibalism (here considering Sima de Huesos antecessor "species" as an alias of Denisovan race, a similarity has been detected).

The caring Neanderthals are based on a Neanderthal kept alive in Shanidar after invalidism. But were his surroundings as Neanderthal as he?

On the other hand, I don't know.

There seem to have been Neanderthals in Spain who were not cannibals (judging from their dental calculi). Perhaps, after all, they were not nephelim. Perhaps those who were so - that is cannibals - were just picking up bad habits from nephelim.

VII

28:02 Would you contact some surviving Christian and archaeologist friend of Clifford Wilson?

I have a little problem in Biblical archaeology.

Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/03/bricks-at-gobekli-tepe-or-close.html

VIII

Thanks for the free mag!

Joe Jordan ...

p. 22 // But as I can confirm from many years speaking on the subject, most Christians wrongly believe God created such life elsewhere, "Otherwise why would He have made the universe so big?" //

One reason why it's great to be Geocentric and believe "parallax" gives no indication of how far alpha Centauri is. I don't need to take the universe as being all that big.

There might of course be something against my view of long standing of stars being only one light day up, I just noticed:

New blog on the kid : A threat to my "one light day up" view?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-threat-to-my-one-light-day-up-view.html

New blog on the kid : Apparent Size depends on Tangent, Right?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/02/apparent-size-depends-on-tangent-right.html

Soon Christmas

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Soon Christmas · New blog on the kid : On the Date of Christmas · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica : Second week of Tishri + 15 Month = Christmas · Does it Make Sense for Christ to Have been Born at Chanukka time?

Most of this youtube is correct:

Is Christmas based on pagan traditions? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-24)
CMIcreationstation | 5.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnxoZljZDwI

I

9:55 Catholic CHurch has three Masses on Christmas day.

Midnight Mass, Dawn Mass, Day Mass.

The Day Mass, I think, has John 1 up to verse 14 as its Gospel.

II

19:41 Erroneous.

Christmas really is a Mass.

You have no trace of any Christmas celebration outside the Church celebrating Mass, since denial of the Mass very much post-dates St Hippolytus in 202. Among nominal Christians, that is.

III

Star of Magi - "not part of heavenly system":

Whether the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system?
S. Th. III P, 36 Q, 7 A
http://newadvent.com/summa/4036.htm#article7

... on Genesis as History

These guys aren't always right, but very often:

Is Genesis poetry? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-05)
CMIcreationstation | 28.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7FFt81bk88

Intro

Mainly agreed, my comments are a few side points, except last where disagreeing with esp. post-Flood patriarchs between Flood and Abraham cited as per Masoretic.

I

8:57 If you agree on long age, you probably also agree on dating, including carbon dating.

And since Abraham at age just after 75 in Genesis 13 and 14 line up with a very clearly proto-dynastic Egypt and Chalcolithic En-Gedi (thanks, Osgood!), that would date by contemporary carbon dates Abraham to c. 3000 BC, somewhat earlier if the Pharao of Genesis 13 was Narmer, while the Biblical chronology up to Joseph and Exodus and King David and so one seem set for more like 2000 BC (Roman Martyrology, LXX based, short stay in Egypt, shorter post-Flood patriarchs than standard LXX, has Abraham born in 2015 BC, so Genesis 12 would have been in 1940 BC).

The solution would seem to be, carbon 14 in Abraham's atmosphere was lower, about as now the samples from Carolingian times.

II

14:55 "historical overview followed by a recap"

In Apocalypse 19 and 20 we would be seeing the opposite sequence.

19 gives details from end of the world, 20 places it in Church history.

Some, however, would place the "thousand years" in 20 between 19 and end of 20.

III

20:58 I actually think Genesis is the first history overview in the world.

Maybe Gilgamesh or Atrahasis or Job were perhaps a century older than Moses writing Genesis. (Moses could have got Job from Raguel/Jethro).

Maybe Mahabharata was about that time (not probable, but possible).

But these are all accounts of single event clusters in the past (for pagan writings) or written down by participant (for Job), and none of them has detailed narratives spanning three centuries or more.

Genesis spans three millennia.

IV

21:39 I checked exactitude with a more modern example.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : âge du monde avec Gabriel Audisio
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/06/age-du-monde-avec-gabriel-audisio.html

The following not from the comment with link, but from the link, translation to the right:
Henri engendra Louis dans la 48-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque neuf ans, tous les ans de la vie d'Henri étaient 57 et même un peu moins. Louis engendra Louis dans la 37-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque cinq ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient 42 et même un peu moins. Louis engendra Louis dans la 24-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque 54 ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient 77 ans et même un peu moins. Louis engendra Louis dans la 21-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque 29 ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient de 50 ans et même un peu moins. Louis engendra Louis dans la 29-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut deux ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient de 30 ans et même un peu moins. Louis engendra Louis dans la 20-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut presque 45 ans, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient 65 ans et même un peu moins. Louis engendra Louis dans la 35-ème année de sa vie, après il vécut onze ans et un peu plus, tous les ans de la vie de Louis étaient 46 ans et un peu plus. Louis engendra Louis dans la 31-ème année de sa vie, et il vit la prise de la Bastille dans la 35-ème année de sa vie. Entre la naissance d'Henri IV et la prise de la Bastille, faut-il prendre: A : 57 + 42 + 77 + 50 + 30 + 65 + 46 + 35 = 402 ans? B : 48 + 37 + 24 + 21 + 29 + 20 + 35 + 35 = 249 ans? 1789 - 1553 = 236 ans.		Henry begot Louis in the 48th year of his life, after he lived almost nine years, all the years of Henri's life were 57 and even a little less. Louis begot Louis in the 37th year of his life, after he lived almost five years, all the years of Louis's life were 42 and even a little less. Louis begot Louis in the 24th year of his life, after he lived almost 54 years, all the years of Louis's life were 77 years old and even a little less. Louis fathered Louis in the 21st year of his life, after he lived almost 29 years, all the years of life of Louis were 50 years old and even a little less. Louis fathered Louis in the 29th year of his life, after he lived two years, all the years of life of Louis were 30 years old and even a little less. Louis begot Louis in the 20-th year of his life, after he lived almost 45 years, all the years of Louis's life were 65 years old and even a little less. Louis fathered Louis in the 35th year of his life, after he lived eleven years and a little more, all the years of life of Louis were 46 years old and a little more. Louis begot Louis in the 31st year of his life, and he saw the capture of the Bastille in the 35th year of his life. Between the birth of Henri IV and the taking of the Bastille, must we take: A: 57 + 42 + 77 + 50 + 30 + 65 + 46 + 35 = 402 years? B: 48 + 37 + 24 + 21 + 29 + 20 + 35 + 35 = 249 years? 1789 - 1553 = 236 years old.
Did you spot an error in the translation? This is an update two days later, btw. I did, despite very short and formulaic sentences : "après" is translated as the preposition "after" instead of as the adverb "thereafter" or the adverbial phrase "after that" - which is what the context requires. Oh, btw, I did it by Google translate, not by hand. Also, last "236 ans" is not the age of anyone, so "236 years old" is another mistake by that machine. So much for AI!

This when Gabriel Audisio had been adding total lifespans (Adam's 930 + Seth's ... etc).

21:51 "Flood to Abraham 353 years"

Masoretic text was tampered with here, in order to pretend that Melchisedec could be Seth, ancestor of Levi, rather than a Gentile.

In Josephus, you find an addition (not from Bible text) as 353 or sth, but you find the detailed genealogy as in LXX (or one of its versions).

He had learned the LXX version by heart as Bible, but been told about the new sum of the years in synagogue, no doubt. To me, at least.

21:58 Christian scholars previous to Reformation, previous to Ussher calculated more like Creation sth like 5199 or 5500 or 5509 years BC.

The Catholic Church doesn't condemn the Ussher calculation, which agrees with Vulgate, but in Christmas litergy uses a 5199 distance from Creation to Christ.

Commenting on CMI, Two Videos

Video A

Creationists damage Christianity? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-10)
CMIcreationstation | 6.VI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCiVk5hTAnc

I

@ 9:18

Forensics you say is two things:

• collecting data
• making a story that will fit them

History actually comes in on more than just the latter, so, more:

• having a history involving a need to collect data
• collecting them and analysing them
• making a story which will fit both the data and the already known parts of history.

II

@ 22:09 or a little before

While it is true that Geocentrism was very widely held so that at a time a serious Heliocentric (not just considering the idea nice sci fi, as Nicolas Oresme) would have been at a smaller percentage than "clinically insane" (how good clinical insanity back then was not decided like that!) ... it is totally envisageable that Geocentrism is actually totally true (absolute Geocentrism, that is), even if the proportions are inversed now.

Why? Because the "geography" of space is no more tested science (beyond certain points, like last object which can give trigonometry by angle of reflected sunlight on it) than history of the universe.

Unless, of course, you take the prima facie evidence of sight and inner ears (these latter saying earth is not moving as we stand on it) as the scientific argument it actually is.

As to Phlogiston, it certainly had a passing majority, but it was a fairly new theory (about a few decades) by the time it was rejected.

Video B

Archaeology supports the Bible (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-06)
CMIcreationstation | 14.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE6yyn4dFms

I

15:35 How can an archaeological discovery show that the magnetic field was 40 % stronger in AD 1000? So far you have mentioned THAT archaeology supports that, but not HOW ...

II

18:02 I do not support the idea of radioactive decay rates having been much faster in the recent past.

In Barry Setterfield's version, it also involves speed of light having been much faster - totally unnecessary if geocentrism accounts for trigonometry to "near stars" not being trigonometric and the stellar distances therefore possibly very much closer to us.

For Argon or Helium trapped in rocks, they could be from atmosphere ...

As to Potassium Argon and alpha decay resulting in Helium, one can also doubt that the half life was correctly measured in the first place.

With half life of Carbon 14, we can check it against historically identifiable organic material. Take a bone splinter from Charlemagne - he died in 814 so his bones are 1204 years old. If they contain 86.446 percent modern Carbon, this confirms the halflife of 5730 years.

You can't get any comparable confirmation for long half lives, and 5730 years is not a half life calculated in a lab, since Libby calculated 5568 years, not 5730 years.

For decaying carbon 14, it is easy to get material that is 1/3 or 1/4 the age of a halflife, historically dated, but for decaying potassium or uranium, it is impossible.

III

2300 BC Ebla Tablets?

That would have been between Joseph in Egypt (carbon date 2600 BC, as per Djoser if Joseph was "Imhotep") and birth of Moses (carbon date 1713 BC as per funeral ship of Sesostris III).

Note, it seems coherent texts in any language come from this time ...

IV

At 25:49 - it seems you have already drifted from the topic of archaeology.

Keaton Halley's "atheists can know morality, but only because atheism is wrong" is of course gold.

But it is another topic.

Now, nowhere on the archaeology topic did you mention carbon 14 and rising C14 levels up to the present level (which on my view was reached well before the present).

So, perhaps time to mention it : if Genesis 14 as per Osgood 1986 on CMI was at the end of Chalcolithic of En Geddi (Hazazon Tamar), this means it's carbon dated about 5000 years old but it is really from only about 4000 years ago.

This means the carbon 14 level was at least as low as in samples that are now 1000 years old, that being 88.606 percent modern Carbon, but probably even lower. Genesis 14 is thus still during the "carbon 14 rise".

You might want to take a look at my overview attempt over this carbon 14 rise: http://ppt.li/3zr

As you mentioned evolution based morality of Hitler, it may be noted that not all the movements often lumped together as Fascism share it. Notably, the other German Fascism, Austrofascism (actually a stage in the longer story of Christian Social Party) did not.

Full link

http://ppt.li/3zr
= Creation vs. Evolution : Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/ultra-brief-summary-on-carbon-14-method.html

... on CMI mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (on second half of video too)

... on CMI Mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (first half of video) · ... on CMI mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (on second half of video too)

Not repeating link to video right now, see previous.

14:54 Back to Flat Earth, the other subject where you are not wrong.

Yes, four corners could be a figure of speech taken over from Babylonian terminology and never taken literally at all in Bible while Babylonians had taken Earth to be a flat rhombic shape (as seen on ordinary map directions), with a corner at each cardinal direction.

But in Revelation we have an angel standing in each of the four corners and holding in the winds.

This implies that angels have power to hold in winds (or conversely to make it blow), but it also pinpoints "four corners" as actual places.

You can get that better with a round earth than with a flat earth, unless you want to count all South corners and on top of that give Oz two of them.

Earth seems to be a word which can also mean "land" - both eretz and "terra" have such a double meaning.

And land can have corners outside which you fall into the sea.

If it refers to the four corners of the "main land" of mankind, namely Old World, we would have a NW corner at Greenland, Iceland, British Isles or Scandinavia, a SW corner at Cape of Good Hope, a SE corner at Singapore, New Guinea or even Oz, and a NE corner at Sakhalin or Japan.

Which would imply that Americas, outside these corners, would have lost in importance, before this happens.

15:21 Earth not on back of some animal - good.

But most mythologies which had a flat earth were not really into backs of animals anyway.

Norse has a tree trunk, also excluded.

Many would have agreed with this word in Job, Greek would. Despite Flat Earth (as witnessed by Hercules meeting Atlas near where Heaven would have touched Earth without the service.

As to Isaiah, if khûg means circle or globe, either way it is at least open for a round Earth.

And if khûg on top of that actually must mean sth globe shaped, well, too bad that some Talmudists missed that.

Many of the Christians involved in Flat Earth are bona fide and simply too much into "Jewish roots". Willing to take anything Talmudic which does not positively directly contradict Christianity.

15:42 Other example of misinformation in public school systems and these days most private schools too : they teach Heliocentrism as if it were a solid and proven fact. It is not.

16:06 "The American Pageant" by Thomas Bailey .... would it perhaps include some endorsement of Heliocentrism too?

16:56 As to full sphere, there was no total proof before Magellan.

Aristotle's fourth and best proof was a mistake about already having a Magellan type proof : if Ganges would have been on the immediate West of Pillars of Hercules, a k a Gibraltar.

Sailors passing equator were not much done by pre-Columbian sailors, except perhaps Portuguese ones - and Columbus had a Spanish crew.

18:22 Lunar eclipses are a fairly good argument for a round earth, but not a fool proof one.

Hindoos who deny round earth attribute lunar eclipses to Rahoo - a planet usually not seen, since it is hidden below the rim of Earth, but which comes up every once in a while to produce eclipses (both lunar and solar, I think).

And a Hindoo would answer that Rahoo is a globe?

Sure always casting a circular shadow proves sth is a globe, but not necessarily the Earth.

Works of Aristotle I: p. 389 is a bad reference, since given in relation to a modern edition.

You ought to have given either the work with its separate title and the book and chapter and paragraph or the pagination of a Renaissance edition, with all works paginated ... sorry, it was a Prussian edition:

"Bekker numbers, the standard form of reference to works in the Corpus Aristotelicum, are based on the page numbers used in the Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of the complete works of Aristotle (Aristotelis Opera edidit Academia Regia Borussica, Berlin, 1831–1870). They take their name from the editor of that edition, the classical philologist August Immanuel Bekker (1785–1871)."

I would like to have known how Aristotle argued against Rahoo, if he even had come across such an idea of a body other than Earth causing lunar eclipses.

[They give a list from 9 to 1 on why Earth is a sphere:]

Number 9 : all "other" celestial bodies are round - but is Earth a celestial body?

Number 8 : day and night happen at different times.

Which is easy to verify by internet, and sometimes when I wake up at night thinking about sth, I am sure someone opposite side of the Earth was praying for me to consider x, but was not considering my timezone being sleeping time. Usually it is also an argument where they would be wiser to try to verify my answer by arguing over the internet with me, than to pray for me to immediately consider the argument when it is perhaps bright day in LA or Sydney, but middle of the night in the area of Paris.

This one has however mostly not been verifiable through out history. Chronometres used to verify latitude ... sorry longitude ... by comparing time on chronometre to astronomic noon or midnight are a fairly recent invention.

Number 7 : note that Coriolis might have a bearing on shape of Earth, but would be the same whichever of Earth and Universe were moving.

So, cannot be used against Geostationary or Geocentric world view.

Number 6 : two quibbles.

• a) if it has three straight angles but curved lines between them, I think triangle is a somewhat misplaced word (it has a bearing on two dimensional geometry);
• b) while I consider this as true, I consider this as a conclusion of Round Earth,, not as a proof of it, since it cannot be well tested.

Or would you like to start walking South from the North Pole to the Equator and then back North to the Pole after some march along equator?

I'd consider it uncomfy.

Number 5 : the curvature of Earth can be measured.

Without Magellan, this might not prove more than Earth being shaped like a chapati pan.

Number 4 : the constellations and the moon appear upside down if seen from other hemisphere than the one you are used to (an Aussie would be saying it is here they appear upside down) : good point, but it is also just recently this is testable.

Number 3 : the Magellan proof!

Yes. But there is such a thing as trusting the Portuguese on this one!

Precisely as there is on trusting Latin Americans on the seasons and day lengths at Tierra del Fuego.

You bet there are Protestants around still who say "na, that is a Jesuit plot". Just as there are such who claim Baptist continuity theory in Church History. To these, the normal givens of history through the centuries as applied to Church are results of a Jesuit plot to deny the "one Protestant faith which was older than Catholicism" as they would have it.

There is also such a thing as trusting sailors - and some land crabs will consider sailors as impure, just as Pharisees did with fishermen.

You can perhaps see now why Jews and Judaising Christians are prominent among Flat Earthers?

Number 2 : good point.

However, some are bungling the mathematical implications on this one.

I have seen people argue as if seeing buildings at all at a certain distance disproved Earth's known diameter. Their argument is equivalent to what you would have if the one watching always had his eyes at ground level.

Number 1 : the Moon landing is perhaps real, I am not DENYING it, but it would have been much easier to fake than the Magellan proof, considering the number of times it has been repeated (mostly by sailors, or Latinos or people who were both).

Admittedly, Deep Space Climate Observatory is a bit better documented, seeing the photo was not from Moon but from EPIC.

24:49 The photoshopping you refer to is indeed a technical possibility which is a weakness in the proof you put as number 1. 24:54 And CGI might have been secretly invented but not yet on market before the opening date of the invention.

I still think you number 3, Magellan, is much better.

25:03 NASA is apart from Round Earth promoting things like Heliocentrism - including Earth turning on its axis - and Climate Science. Not quite traditional things, perhaps NASA could have a skeleton in the cupboard.

By the way Magellan could have had motives like promoting Catholic exegesis. If you are into that kind of thing.

And now, the thing about footages taken from Moon. You believe them to be genuine, I have no quarrel with that, but a footage from Moon taken in timelapse showing Earth turns around itself is like a footage from ISS showing same : in both cases (and for ISS you know it) the stance of observer is moving around the observed object.

26:16 There you have a mighty motive for a Protestant. All Medieval scholars ... think of what that means to a Protestant.

Orbis cruciger is also appealing to Catholics.

27:06I actually saw an evolutionist or old earther appeal to King James.