Nope, It Wasn't Joshua 10 This Video

Joshua 12, Are you Fighting A Battle?
24.VII.2022 | Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvK2piSAyCA

9:18 The Palestinians of the Gaza strip are not Philistines.

They may have admixture from Algerians and Circassians, since the 1860's, but they are basically Muslim Israelites, like the Palestinians of Bethlehem, Cana, formerly also Nazareth are mainly Christian Israelites.

12:41 "are you keeping any records?"

Hmmmm .... sounds like you read Ejercicios Espirituales ... St. Ignatius of Loyola recommended keeping diaries with letter symbols for diverse sins, and numbers for how many times you did it ... and be happy when a symbol becomes less frequent or the numbers get lower.

14:25 AA are a Masonic bunch or heretics / apostates.

I was one night sheltered by an ex-AA. He gave me the book on 12 principles and the other book on 12 steps.

I analysed and found it highly Masonic and un-Christian.

Why would you listen to them?

Oh, sorry, AARP = American Association of Retired Persons
My bad ...

24:24 I am not just willing to work, I am working.

Made half a post on what people before the Flood were not living together with Bohemiatupus elegans, had to stop to check a distance by mail, couldn't do it by search.

Made a post of reader statistics, a re-post of my second co-edition with wikipedia on Geocentrism in French (point being, it has lots of good stuff the present version of wikipedia is missing), a notification to readers I signed a protest against making abortion a constitutional right in France (yes, they did make such a damnable proposal), some dialogue on the shift in world view leading up to abandoning Geocentrism, hope to get more before making a post of it ...

But I do nead an editor for the paper version, since the internet version is offered for free.

25:54 No, the battle with lust started a bit later, after Adam bit into the forbidden fruit.

43:45 There are some articles on carbon dating on my blog too (search "creavsevolu" + "New Tables").

Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism

HGL's F.B. writings : A Shorty from a Long Debate : on Innocent III as a pretended "mass murderer of Christians" · Albigensians and Innocent III - Which was the Christian Side? · "Sola Scriptura inevitably results in countless contradicting theologies." · Someone admired Kent Hovind without my reservations · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Kent Hovind's Errors on Anti-Catholicism and Heliocentrism

11/26/18 - Dr. Kent Hovind: Questions and Answers - Which Church?
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL | 27.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu-KzqbG-Pc

I

4:13 "300 years later the Catholic Church started with Constantine"

Except, it claims it started 300 years earlier, when Christ chose His disciples ....

4:20 "He took all the soldiers down to the river ..."

What exact occasion?

In fact, mass baptism did happen when Franks (Salian Franks) under Clovis and Kievan Rus' (under Volodymyr) were converted.

As to Franks, they arguably calmed down compared to previous saccaging, and they also defended Catholic Romans against persecutions by Arian Visigoths further south.

As to Kievan Rus', for a while there were no more death penalties (I think it remained so in the life of St Volodymyr, or even beyond).

B U T .... Constantine? When? Is there a quote for it in Eusebius?

4:39 OK ... Catholics and Original Christians, for 1200 years, both claim to be Christians up to Martin Luther.

Which ones of the non-Catholic groups are you identifying with Original Christians?

I don't think any of them lasted all that era, I also don't think different groups were the same.

And I think I am a bit better than you at Church History.

4:58 Neither the 95 theses nailed by Luther, nor the condensed list of 41 Luther-theses condemned by Pope Leo was a simple list of things Luther thought the Catholic Church was "doing wrong".

Some were his interpretations of Catholic doctrine, abandoned later, when he founded Lutheran Protestantism properly speaking, like "if a soul wishes to escape purgatory it sins mortally against the justice of God" or "souls in purgatory are masochists by submission to God's justice".

As if there was no obedience in accepting God's clemency.

5:13 As you claim the Protestants are NOT the original group, where was it in 1517?

Btw, Protestants splitting in 30 flavours is pretty spot on. Your religion is actually one of them.

5:56 Oh, Anabaptists ... like the proto-Communist Munzer?

Or like Menno - except Menno was a decades later peaceful reconversion of Munzer's Anabaptists ....

6:06 Now you are speaking of Baptists.

Started out as two sects, even later than Menno.

"Historians trace the earliest "Baptist" church to 1609 in Amsterdam, Dutch Republic with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.[2] In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants and instituted baptism only of believing adults.[3] Baptist practice spread to England, where the General Baptists considered Christ's atonement to extend to all people, while the Particular Baptists believed that it extended only to the elect."

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

1906 Asuza Street has same numerals in different order as 1609, Amsterdam, John Smyth ...

II

As by 7:00 sth you are into personal memories, I'll go into mine.

Ma was into Salvation Army.

William Booth separated from Methodists
Methodists separated from Anglicans
Luther, Zwingli, and even more relevant Bucer and Cranmer and Tyndale separated from the Catholic Church.

Dad (I was told) was into 7DA.

Ellen White came from the Millerites
etc .... library closing.

[resuming next day]

Miller was a Baptist - which leads back to two sects starting out in 17th C. which leads back to Presbyterians which leads back to Catholics.

7:55 Figuring it out a bit better for you.

The Methodist marks a difference between Bible reading and preaching, as the Catholic priests did before him and still do.

NB, with other means.

First the Catholic priest sings or reads the Gospel (or has a Deacon sing it for him, but no one under Deacon is allowed to do so). This he does in full vestment, including the chasuble. He does it in Latin. Why? Because the Gospel reading is strictly a part of the Mass, a part of liturgy.

Then he takes off the chasuble, appearing so to speak more as the individual he is, and speaks his sermon in vernacular. This is how it has been since maybe even 813 AD, council of Tours (and earlier in parts where vernacular was a Germanic language and not a dialect of Latin).

Now, the Methodist never has a chasuble in the first place, so he has two different pulpits instead.

III

8:50 "Baptism is nothing but water"

You are contradicting John 3. Verse 5.

9:01 A priest saying a blessing over the water is not what makes it do a holy thing, a sacrament, in Baptism.

Using specially blessed baptismal water is customary, not necessary - a wetnurse who has to baptise a baby who could risk dying before baptism uses ordinary water. What makes the water perform a holy thing in Baptism is form (given in Matthew 28:19 as to the main words) and intention (of the person baptising and, at least absence of counterintention in the person being baptised).

Funny you can't discuss Catholicism without misrepresenting it ....

By the way, one reason for infant baptism is, with adult baptism, a man could risk making his baptism invalid by posing a counterintention.

It could happen if he has lived a chaotic life, if thoughts flash through his head he needs to take time getting back on track and so on.

Children of eight days old getting baptised are getting their salvation solely based on what Christ did.

Yeah, brain fade was the word .... [i e, what if someone getting baptised as adult has one and thinks "no, I don't want to get baptised!" for the central moment?]

IV

10:14 As you brought up Bereans of Acts 17, they were competent to search the OT Scriptures. For one. They were Pharisees (up to converting to Christianity) and had been taught OT under rabbis for all their lives, since the age of school children.

Also, note, they were not looking for explicit literal confirmation of a Christian doctrine, since OT was only prophecying Christ, not stating His life in the way the Gospels are. In order to confirm Christianity from OT only (with Rabbinic tradition, mind you, of the better sort) they needed to be able to take a hint.

Abusing Acts 17 to expose Catholic laymen with little instruction (closer to Galilaean fishermen than to Berean Pharisees) to the exercise of having to defend this that and sundry Catholic doctrine by a literal and explicit statement AND on top of it telling them to discard the literal and explicit statements there are (like for Real Presence in Eucharist) by "of course you understand" types of arguments, that is very highly abusive.

Some Protestants on the internet have tried that with me, and ... well, I am a fairly well instructed Catholic after having been a Bible geek type of Protestant ... so, they cannot count on the same kind of success as with a Mexican from the country trying to make sense of the city where he is trying to better his external conditions and where sometimes an Apostasy to Protestantism (especially Evangelical) could be helping his affairs. The timely ones, not the eternal ones.

The OTHER proof text for "every Christian needs to read the Bible himself" is also not a proof for that. John 5 includes Christ's words, not to Galilaean fishermen, but to Pharisees.

V

12:15 Another one, if they really went up in a rocket, they would have looked in all directions and seen a round horizon - and they would have seen an edge equidistant from them in every direction they looked and it would have been round.

So, they saw the curvature. Why didn't you challenge them on that one?

And more, if they knew geography, the horizon they saw would also not have included all the cuntries they knew, not all of US etc.

If you see a horizon whereever you look, you see a round horizon.

If this round horizon does not include every place you know of, it stands to reason that there is a curvature of a ball like type where things are hidden behind a horizon.

12:34 "and spinning"

Actually does contradict Joshua 10:12.

Joshua and the words he spooke were God's means of producing a miracle, like Moses' staff or like Elijah's mantle.

They are not simple narrative, they are what God used to make a miracle.

Now Joshua didn't say "Earth, stop spinning". He told Sun and Moon to stand still.

There is also no scientific reason for a spinning earth which cannot be turned around to an aether spinning around earth and displacing vectors with it. And there is no reason against a luminiferous and vectorially-inertial-framing aether in the Michelson Morley experiment, unless you presume Earth is orbitting the Sun.

Also, with a spinning and orbitting earth, you have stellar distances.

Now, you are very right that Earth-Earth-alpha-Centauri is a very skinny triangle.

But the angle of alpha-Centauri-alpha-Centauri from Earth is not directly measured. It is measured in relation to the background of stars presumed further away and adhering in movement closer to just "aberration" which is a movement more than twenty times greater in angle than this.

If I say "aberration and parallax are both misnomers, the movement is not a compound apparent movement from two phenomena of optics related to our movement, it is a simple proper movement by an angel moving the star", then I have no problem having stars (i e fix stars, not planets) at a distance of one or two light days over Earth, and then I also have no problem whatsoever with the "Distant Starlight Paradox". Light from alpha Centauri or Sirius or any other star left the star on day four and arrived on day five so newly created birds and beetles could start orienting themselves.

The nova supposed to be millions of light years away being only one light day away means, it was observed on Earth the day or within days from after it happened out there.

So, no, you were wrong to involve "spinning" in what you defended.

Round, yes, the Biblical four corners are better identifiable on a globe than on a modern flat Earth map. But spinning, no.

Oh, one more, if you don't think that even aberration of starlight is a measurable angle, why do you believe in Earth orbitting sun in the first place?

VI

"yes he supports the round Earth, but believes Earth is the centre of the Solar system"

Of the Universe, not specifically the solar system.

"the Sun goes around the earth, you know [how] fast the Sun would have to go at 93 million miles away to go around once a day?"

Well, why would this be a problem?

IF this happens bc Sun moves through an inertial frame (including empty space as per one Newtonian-Galilaean aberration).

149 598 023 km * 2pi / 24 h = 39 164 671 km / h
92 955 902 mi * 2pi /24 h = 24 335 798 mph

Now, imagine this is vectorial movement within a frame, it is pretty drastic. Imagine instead the only vectorial movement is the one which makes Sun lag behind the stars. That eastward movement which comes full circle in one year.

You would need to divide by 365.2425

39 164 671 km/h / 365.2425 = 107 229 km/h
24 335 798 mph / 365.2425 = 66 629 mph

Obviously, an angel is taking the Sun Eastward. He is overhauled by the aether through which he is moveing it and which God is giving a much faster spin around Earth Westward.

13:51 Your polemic on flat earthers and their view on night and day is not really supporting your Heliocentrism.

13:59 "send me a map of what you believe"

It's probable they won't do it, since inside the round rim, they don't have four corners. On a globe the Old World has roughly speaking four corners (England offshore, Cape of Good Hope, Australia offshore and Sakhalin). They form a "non-Euclidean rectangle". (Bad terminology, but still, that is what they form - a "rectangle" with sum of corners > 360°).

I have pointed it out, others may have repeated it, by now they would know it and be afraid you would point it out too.

VII

14:42 "watch the video Edrick and I did"

Would that be your son Eric and you and automatic subtitles being erratic?

Would you mind linking to it?

VIII

15:18 Look here, if a professor made a public comment on a video of yours, you have no business saying "I'll call him Nicholas".

A fan of yours (admin on a site you approved) wrote this:

"But forbidding people to read some book? Off course we can give some advice about some particular book, and then it's up to the individual to do as he believes is right for him. But do inform him!"

Witch hunt and sect behaviour or The ability to criticize yourself
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers/witchhunt.html

Actually, the Catholic Index did inform people such and such a book existed and Church didn't want you to read it.

Those who wanted to obey the Church bought a copy of latest edition of the Index, and before buying a book not explicitly endorsed by the Church, checked it wasn't in there. Those who didn't want to obey the Church could see Voltaire and Locke were among authors Catholic magisterium didn't want you to read.

You are by contrast NOT informing your viewers on where they can find Nicholas real or pretended debunking of you.

You are treating a refutation (successful or attempted) as the question of a private enquirer whose last name is withheld for his privacy.

This is definitely dishonest and that people like Tyson DeGrasse or DeGrasse Tyson are doing such things is no reason to do it if you pretend to be a Christian. It reminds me of the ways in which "gatekeeping" in synogogues worked over 2000 years, so young Jews could read no Christian literature.

And after what Nicholas seems to be saying, I think his site needs exposure for the idiocy it promotes.

32:29 Wait, "Nicholas" was so cheap he didn't publish his going through of your video, he just sent you the papers?

Too bad one can't get to see all the arguments you were not responding to on the many pages.

Well, that would exonerate you from the charge of over secrecy on this one ...

IX

[after continuing to watch, here is some in response to "Nicholas" and Kent Hovind:]

22:59 I'm afraid you missed what his argument was.

The argument wasn't laminations, it was outcrops.

Some area in Karoo, you find creatures classified as Triassic. In the middle of it, you find creatures classified as Permian. ERGO, there is an outcrop of the Permian layer from below the Triassic one.

For my part, I have dealt with it. Permian and Triassic creatures are both biotope specific parts of the pre-Flood fauna in what is now Karoo.

23:41 I think you are at least partly right on his proving age of layers by fossils and age of fossils by layers they are found in. I would however imagine he has some kind of pretense that for instance the outcrop of Permians creatures in Karoo is accompanied by lithographic layers pointing to Permian being lower - I haven't found that, and I actually didn't even pose the question in contacting Karoo. Yes, I had a short correspondence with them over there.

24:19 I'd submit to Nicholas the discrete events are in fact not very long separated ones during the Flood and the problem is not so much boiling the series down to a few thousand years as reshifting from "event series" to biotopes during Flood, side by side.

26:14 Rapid lamination is quite OK, but it doesn't adress all he was talking of. I do (except perhaps "outcrop" being shown as such by non-fossil means as well) by adressing the fossil layers as biotopes.

Btw, Permian and Triassic creatures are also not bottom to top series, at least as far as land vertebrates and Karoo is concerned, that much I checked. Where they found Triassic near top, they presume they would find Permian lower, but don't bother to look as they have an outcrop of Permian layers near by.

Long Reply to Hovind

7/20/18 -Dr. Kent Hovind: Creation that Destroys Evolution - Beryllium
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL | 20.VII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N55HEpU0qRw

I

6:47 "four elements" is not exact equivalent to "elements" in chemic sense.

II

12:06 I agree that big bang is stupid, but on another point.

IF all matter and energy were one time squeezed into a space as small as a period, well, it was very crowded and very hot and that would explain why it exploded.

The theory neither says it came from nothing, nor from a great squeeze or crunch, and obviously also not it was eternally a dot in eternity past before big bang, it leaves the question "open".

It is just that each of these secondary interpretations has a huge problem, crunch to bang having a spring quality perhaps least problematic, that the theory has a huge problem at this level.

It's the next level which is REALLY idiotic.

Matter and energy explode outwards, and somehow each bit starts to rotate and matter starts to gravitate together along each of the directions. How do you explain THAT?

As to all matter and energy being in that small space, it is per se less problematic as to space question, as long as you believe atomic theory : since atomic theory (as accepted by Creationist Edgar Andrews) says matter is mostly empty space. Mount Everest, squeeze all protons and neutrons and electrons together with no space between = smaller than an armchair.

To squeeze even more, you would probably have to squeeze a lot of matter inside the larger particles too.

But it is at least conceivable.

It is only very unnecessary : you don't have to buy atomic theory on everything between protons and electrons in atom and one and other atom's electron shell being empty space, and you don't have to believe the whole stuff either, unless you believe in projecting expansion of space (see redshift) backwards to the utmost opposite from the direction to where things seem to be going.

III

13:01 Alan Guth has a problem in geometry.

Divisions of space are potentially infinitesimal. There is no such things as an infinitesimal actual division of space.

Divisions of a pizza are infinitesimal (unless you ask about the atoms which take some space not divisible while they stay the same), but actual divisions go like "undivided - two halves - half and two quarters to four quarters - three quarters and two eights to two quarters and four eights - on quarter and six eights to eight eights".

You can go on infinitesimally, but you cannot reach an actual infinitesimal.

This is also why Thomas Aquinas has a point in Prima Pars, Quaestio II, Article III.

Or, he had [Alan, not Aquinas] - not sure if he stays with his stupidity from 1996.

IV

18:58 If God created from nothing, some things would perhaps have looked a bit like big bang, when He did it.

In the beginning - how many nanoseconds? If any at all.

God created Heaven - how many nanoseconds, if any, before earth?

And Earth - appearing in the middle of Heaven, and it took it how many nanonseconds (if any at all) to do so?

Assume verse 1 conceivably could have taken three nanoseconds, or less, if you have a slow motion of them, it might have looked a bit like Big Bang.

Not that the theory itself as a whole is correct or anywhere near it, but the part you object to is the part we have as Christians too, in a way.

V

20:44 the idea of "things that are not going to burn" - was that an idea in OT too?

Because, even if Odin was a fraud and an apostate, he seems to have had some Hebrew good sense left, even in Sweden (I know, it's hard, that is why I left the place).

About thousand years from when he said it, in Old Icelandic his words sounded like:

"eitt veitt ek ther aldri deyr : dóm om daudhan vern"

One thing I know, which never dies : judgement on a dead man.

VI

As to the end, Chesterton did find he liked to have someone to thank for water - and for wine and beer.

And he did go to a priest, to confess before "God and men" he was sorry for some things he had done before that.

If YOU want to get God's absolution, why don't you go to Topeka and ask Pope Michael for details (he may ask you to be faithful to your first wife though).

On Sexual Sins, Rapes and Rapes and Hovind Getting Reason for Death Penalty Wrong

Dr. Kent Hovind 10-27-17 Gen 34, Rape of of Dinah, sexual sins and how to deal with them.
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_K6hAN3DQI

5:54 Don't you wish it had just been a regular shot gun wedding?

13:59 It is not all rape, only some rapes where stoning is involved.

Other ones, the rapist is obliged to marry the victim, if her father wants him to.

Note very well, there might have been some abuse of that paragraph to arrange "rapes", because an unraped virgin getting seduced, under OT, would have been stoned.

[16] If a man seduce a virgin not yet espoused, and lie with her: he shall endow her, and have her to wife. [17] If the maid's father will not give her to him, he shall give money according to the dowry, which virgins are wont to receive. (Exodus 22)

Here it says seduce, I think there is a parallel for rape.

Here is Deuteronomy 22:

[23] If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her, [24]Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee. [25] But if a man find a damsel that is betrothed, in the field, and taking hold of her, lie with her, he alone shall die: [26] The damsel shall suffer nothing, neither is she guilty of death: for as a robber riseth against his brother, and taketh away his life, so also did the damsel suffer: [27] She was alone in the field: she cried, and there was no man to help her. [28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life. [30] No man shall take his father's wife, nor remove his covering.

So, the rapist who is taking a non-espoused damsel is not stoned, but bound to take her.

Biblical model for shotgun wedding.

14:56 No, I don't think it is genetics which decides who commits a crime.

Weeding out genes (other than by death penalty, which is not due for every rape), comes dangerously close to what St Paul prophecied to St Timothy.

1 Tim 4 : [1] Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, [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.

Hey, one more thing.

Some women get pregnant by rape.

I guess you do NOT consider this as an excuse for abortion, at least I don't.

If a raped women forgives the rapist or if she gets a chance of killing him and does, which do you think is healthier for her relationship to the child?

With Kent Hovind, on Last Days

666 Mark of the Beast is the Rise of the Machines AI
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pQuEfIeu8

2:26 Now you know what Go is:

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

[At 2:26, he didn't, but the video is a bit old, he might have known before.]

3:41 I disagree on both time of Flood and location of Tower of Babel.

[Time : he had mentioned Ussher date for Flood, location, I think he referred to the Ziggurat of Woolley's Ur]

• 1) Roman Martyrology for Christmas day enumerates the dates for different epochs on which Christ was born. 5199 after The Beginning, 2957 after The Flood of Noah, 2015 after Birth of Abraham.
  
  
• 2) Shinar extends into Turkey, since a part of Turkey is east of Euphrates. There you find Edessa, a k a Shahnlee URfa (means venerable Urfa, was Ur Kasdim acc. to some) and close by Göbekli Tepe. If GT was location, it can have been meant as a launching ramp, and the tower might have been a rocket. Genesis 6:11 indicates the tower could be a later success. God was not stopping it from being built, God delayed it to Cape Canaveral. Genesis 11:[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. Doesn't say they ceased to project the tower, though.

4:04 First hit on Nimrod and Chick : an attack on Catholic Mariology ... yeah, right, "good stuff", no, bad stuff in fact.

Like when Chick promotes the Jewish liar Avro Manhattan, whom I refuted on giving bad references in footnotes he hoped no one would look up (unless he hoped to be discovered as a fraud):

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Heard this one? Donation of Constantine a fraud to extort the Peter's Pence, like?
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2016/10/heard-this-one-donation-of-constantine.html

[He had mention Jack Chick as having good resources for Tower of Babel and what happened there.]

9:20 how about you distributing this one:

antimodernista : Can We Reasonably Trust the Gospels? – YES! P. 1-8
https://antimodernista.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/can-we-reasonably-trust-the-gospels-yes-p-1-8/

[He had said this thing about not just waiting around for the worst, but getting a job for the winning of souls.]

Conditions can be added Monday, now's Sunday Eve (Sunday tomorrow, started 18:00)

Yes, it is now monday ... conditions:

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

(also quoted in the booklet itself). A little hitch?

IBAN-IDENTIFIANT INTERNATIONAL DU COMPTE:
FR81...10011...00020...102...2192955Z...24 [no dots!]

The numbers are a bit changed in their arrangement with the spaces now.

New blog on the kid : On Donativo, a Practical Point
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/05/on-donativo-practical-point.html

From a message I got from post office bank, it would seem that the proper way to space the IBAN would now be:
FR81 1001 1000 2010 22192955Z 24

Need instructions about printing?

Here:

Recipes from Home and Abroad : Printing Books / Imprimer des Livres
http://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.fr/p/printing-books-imprimer-des-livres.html

And more recently here:

Recipes from Home and Abroad : From Blog Posts or Notebook to Book : Part I, up to reproducible originals
http://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.fr/2016/08/from-blog-posts-or-notebook-to-book.html

Recipes from Home and Abroad : From Blog Posts or Notebook to Book : Part II, from reproducible originals to books you can turn the pages of
http://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.fr/2016/09/from-blog-posts-or-notebook-to-book.html

Other little hitch about pages placed wrong in one of the scans? I'll try to fix that soon, but if on one double sided copy of the printouts you get exactly two pages displaced after folding correctly, you know there is sth wrong and might want to try to fix it too.

I'll have a look.

If four pages are displaced, you probably didn't match the two printouts correctly when making a double sided copy, turn one of them around and try again.

Other little thing, on p. 34 I am going to add "pp. 23-34 mostly based on wikipedia, links not copied to the print, sorry, here's the attribution" or sth like that. If I haven't by when you print it out, please add it!

... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 3) ... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A - Genocide, Churches, Pre-Trib, Western Australia, WOE
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXgQWDN0YRQ

Before going in to the things he answers after reading part of my letter, here is the blog copy of my letter:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/11/to-kent-hovind-on-mass-killings-ordered.html

Maybe I was in the original letter less well showing what were my words and what were those I quoted or quoted as quoted by someone, but I still think I did some of that.

Also I forgot to congratulate him on getting my first name right.

Also, if I did not use "Doctor" to Kent, it is two things: 1) if people start denying him a doctorate he nevertheless has, why call anybody doctor? And the habit has so grown on me, I forget he was the reason for it in the first place, 2) in relation to someone who thinks it is wrong to call a priest "Father", one can mention that "Doctor" is more or less equivalent to "teacher" or "rabbi".

1:32 Hi, Hans Georg Lundahl here, I am from Sweden and Austria*, but live in and around Paris*. Of course I do not endorse the qualifications that "reader John" gave Jerry Coyne on "why evolution is true" about you!

1:41 I have actually on my blog referenced a video by your son Eric and PP Simmons (I think the other guy was), I was NOT endorsing those descriptions of you, should perhaps have left them out, but was giving full quotes for context of the salient quote from you. Here is one of my blogs:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hell Fire (Yes, it Exists)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-hell-fire-yes-it-exists.html

And here in the left margin** it links to:

Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS
ppsimmons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GADfTc_j9Y

[2:40 I was not bearing the false witness, I was quoting it for context and didn't bother to read all of the introductory quotes.

Unlike Jerry Coyne and his reader John, I do believe the Bible and I do believe in not bearing false witness. (Not sure the latter is a difference.)] - While I tried to change this, adding the parenthesis, I suppressed it, and in this library (Nanterre University Library) I cannot copy-paste into youtube comments. Or could not.

4:31 Now, I agree the diseases are a possility. Though NOT an attested fact. But I do not agree they constitute a complete theodicy for killing of the children as well.

If God had told Joshua to convert Canaaneans, presumably God could have cured all those diseases. The reason this was not the case was that God had just taken Hebrews out of Egypt where they had become somewhat materialistic and crude (I mean they went through an attempt of genocide under one bad Pharao, and that before they had a Torah to comfort them).

So, I am still not happy with diseases being a justification for killing the children.

Louis XV eradicated bubonic plague after the last time, by firing at innocent people who were presumed to have been contaminated. This was a public health benefit, but it was not Christian justice, it was a sinful way to acquire a public health benefit.

5:15 That ONE option is, in itself, a bad one, unless strictly subsidiary to more just ones. I have heard things about God punishing parents through their children. Assume Moloch worshippers were habitually sacrificing their own children, some chosen ones of them ... Joshua's soldiers killing a whole bunch before fathers and mothers might have awakened them to what they were doing. Joshua would still not have been right to do so, unless it had been on God's order.

5:43 sth I did study history of quarantine. It is sinful, like abortion is sinful, or nearly so.

[At least the cases where people are deliberately killed for trying to leave a quarantine, even if they could consider themselves still healthy and fear to be lost if not leaving.]

5:53 That's "common medical sense" - like abortion of disabled? Some call THAT "common medical sense" too! Of course not, it is mortally sinful!

While we are at it.

If "original fifty AIDS patients" had been killed, that would not automatically have spared us the AIDS epidemic, since there could have been undetected ones even back then. Also, it would have been unjust if even one was a rape victim, an innocent spouse contaminated by an unfaithful one, or got it through a blood transfusion. If the conspiracy theory is true, the earliest ones were indeed deliberately contaminated by the unethical doctors who monitored the virus transfer from green monkeys to man - if this were true, every one of them might have been innocent and undeserving to die. Not saying it is or that it isn't true, I don't know, I know what I suspect but also I have not right now access to Lyndon LaRouche's study on that question.

6:01 "That may be why God told them to do that?"

No.

This comment may be why hovind (all lower case!) adds up to 666 in ASCII Code. HOVIND upper case = 474. 32 added on each upper case English letter to make it lower case. 474 + 192 = 666. A = 65, Z = 90. a = 97, z = 122.

[Go figure who has that number in upper case ... BERGOGLIO, and with a space and a French transscription, V POUTINE]

[My bad - it is Hovind with normal spelling which is the less well attested value for Apocalypse 13:18 - 616. And since less well attested, less likely and thus safer.]

6:16 Yes precisely, Peter Singer is in favour of killing babies the age killed in the massacres of Joshua ... for medical reasons. Now, if you are NOT in favour of Peter Singer, as I am not, you need to allow God had a much better motive than Peter Singer!

7:57 I am NOT blaming you for saying God told Joshua to kill all of certain nations. But I AM blaming you for making the medical reason your PRIME theodicy about this. That is NOT in the text, nor are the speculations on Canaanites being all sick with diseases.

8:00 "I'm just the messenger boy" No, when it comes for making the medical aspect the main reason, you are NOT a messenger, you are making your own thoughts about the matter and this one on this matter is sinful.

8:05 Again, the "medical reason" is NOT in the Bible. On this one you are NOT a messenger. Study William Lane Craig (also cited in Jerry Coyne's post), he's better than you, though incomplete.

Or he is incompletely quoted by Jerry Coyne, I am no longer sure if I saw more on his own page.

8:23 I consider this as a formal release.

This will be blogged, though on the other blog where I do youtube comments and youtube debates in English.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com

Just so you know, it has up to now 79568 pageviews since November 2008.

Footnotes:

* Born in Austria, Vienna, of Swedish parents, lived most of childhood in Austria and Germany, and most of life in Malmö, Sweden, now homeless in Paris. ** Left margin : 1) Eucharistic Miracle probable proof Ordo Missae of Paul VI is valid (link), 2) Sister Blog in French: Répliques Assorties (link), 3) Other issue: somewhere I had written something about Kent Hovind possibly having tax frauded as laws now are. Here is what his son has to say about it: [linked to video above in this message], 4) Labels (co-authors, boards or label reconsidered positions) [Kent Hovind Official appears "under K", eight posts before this one, which will make it nine], 5) Loyal readers (3 so far, including myself), 6) Blog Archive (the one that goes by year and month), 7) Marital Age, Catholic Sources Thomas Aquinas, Council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII. Marital Age, Catholic sources. Cited by Hans Lundahl (Hans_Georg1) on Antimodernism MSN Group. (link here too, to backup : http://www.webcitation.org/5copHfHGT), Russian Orthodox sources from same time (under Lithuanian supremacy or under the Czars) would have given similar age limits. And 8) Resist Meta-Man! (Also still available on this link: here, le même jacobite : Resist Meta Man).

Appendix on ASCII Code Gematria:

A	65	N	78	B	66	H	72
B	66	O	79	E	69	o	79+32
C	67	P	80	R	82	v	86+32
D	68	Q	81	G	71	i	73+32
E	69	R	82	O	79	n	78+32
F	70	S	83	G	71	d	68+32
G	71	T	84	L	76
H	72	U	85	I	73	O	79
I	73	V	86	O	79	U	85
J	74	W	87
K	75	X	88	V	86	T	84
L	76	Y	89		32	I	73
M	77	Z	90	P	80	N	78	E	69

Other appendix:

He did finally say, though I missed it after the words I took as a release, he did not know why God ordered, but that this theory was only one seeming reasonable to him. It is not quite reasonable in Christian morality, but thanks for caution. Belatedly.

... on Second Half of the Hovind video

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I was Given Advice …, 2) Assorted retorts: ... on Second Half of the Hovind video

1) ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 2) ... on Second Half of the Hovind video

17:05

"sometimes the opponent won't allow that for some reason, they don't wan't to look stupid"

Hear, hear!

How lawabiding of you! I blog debates I have on internet without release, and IF they sue me, I have planned to use that argument.

They might get me in jail, they might get a blog down, but they would make publicity for my arguments. And if they try "it's for your sake", I call that bluff. Have been doing so for more than ten years now, and have never been sued.

However, if their problem is not wanting me to get money from a post they contributed to, that is alreay arranged on my part: my general licence is such that THEY can make an edition and earn money of it themselves before sending me some.

Never one who did that either, as far as I know.

ONE possible exception : I heard a Calvinist geocentric claim that the best book he had read on Geocentrism, technically, was by a freewillbeliever, he maybe even specified Catholic, and "set as fictional dialogues". Meanwhile, the debates I had put up on MSNGroup Antimodernism had gone down in February 2009, most of them, along with all MSN Groups. So no one could check on internet if the texts were there. I did not get a penny of that book, which was perhaps not needed even IF it was my work, and I have not found the video again, so I can't ask the speaker for specifics on that one.

BUT, I have never been sued yet!

20:52

Lying and bearing false witness against one's neighbour are related, but every small lie is not a big sin against that commandment.

One I recall "I am Norwegian" - before end of conversation I had admitted I am Swedish and only quarter Norwegian and know very little about Norway beyond what Swedes usually know, which is Flåklypa and Flexness, and I wasn't asked about them.

I think that is the kind of sins one can be freed from very easily, simply by saying sorry to God, or, in this case, "thanks for not succeeding in the sin".

Now, how about exact quotes from Habacuc next time you speak about alcohol?

22:53

There are cases when rape is not punished by death.* In certain cases, the victim had an option of taking culprit for husband. In such a case, divorce was impossible (women never divorced husbands anyway under old law, and husband was specifically forbidden to do so if marriage had such a background).

*Even under old law, when by divine mandate some rapes were so punished.

28:55

And for the very few with no author precisely known, it seems there was collective and consecutive authorship. Judges was probably written like Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - writer after writer taking down current events, and these writers being believeable people in their community, in the case of Judges probably kohanim (or people screened by them) and in the case of ASC, monks.

29:34

"it wouldn't matter who's the author is God wrote it"

Well, wrong.

Now, we know God is ultimate author BECAUSE we know (with some approximation, as in case of Judges) who the human author was and BECAUSE human author believably to the Church of God (Patriarch families in Genesis, Israel in OT times, earliest Catholics in Acts and Gospels) made that claim and was the kind of man, witnessed by that Church, who would not have made it unless it were true.

... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 3) ... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

1) ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 2) ... on Second Half of the Hovind video

Video of which first part is here commented on:

Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A - Evolution, Saved Atheist, Worship God, DNA, Carbon Dating, etc
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-vSKRq3ebY

Nice I could at last hear the video, I was asking about in the letter.

I

1:18 For Bern/Bernard:

Creation vs Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

I nearly only mention the Bible when defining what I am defending.

II

2:12 Ah, so you mean the publicity "if you pray this, sincerely, you KNOW you will go to Heaven" (perhaps not by you, what about those pre-prison videos? I tried not to watch that part, since I am a Catholic) might not be correct?

[context for those not watching video : a now atheist asked if the sinner's prayer he had devoutly prayed before apostasy meant he would go to Heaven.]

III

3:19 "where the minerals have all replaced the bone itself"

Hmmm in the meantime you were in prison, soft tissue and DNA have been found on fossils. DNA might tell what colour* the mammal was.

Welcome back to the fray.

* Yes, I use British spelling, that's what we learn in school in Sweden, and I also think useless spelling reforms suck.

IV

7:13 Trusting God until you know the answer, sure, good.

But the ex tempore guess ... not so good.

As said in the letter, if you meant there were other reasons, but God also gave a healthbenefit for obeying his apparently cruel command, yes.

But if you think that was the main reason, no. That is not Christian morals.

Under the NT, there is no reason to annihilate any nation. But if you did, back under OT times under Joshua, it makes some sense to kill the children along with parents.

[That is: that Israelites did so back then.]

You see, one couple of parents need to be both put to death by public justice, of course you don't kill small children. They can be adopted by someone. It will be a shock for them later to know they did not grow up with their real parents, but it will be the shock of one or two small children. If there is a child already teen, but not accomplice to the crimes, he can take care of them and later tell them "sure, our mum and dad were killed, they maybe deserved it, but at least they let us stay together." No teen spared = adoption, more of a shock. The one you were licing with would be the choice of the judge who hanged your mum and dad.

BUT that shock will be diluted by a whole society where this is uncommon.

If a whole nation had been wiped out and children adopted, I think the emotional shock would have been immense and NOT diluted. There might have been factions of people knowing or thinking they were sons of a killed nation and wanting revenge. Their might have been rebellions against God because of this.

I think US and Canada Protestants sometimes tried saving children the dumb way : not by convincing their parents, not by waiting till they were old enough to be independent of unconvinced parents, but by taking them away from parents who were Amerindian just because these parents were Pagans and sometimes at least considered (and sometimes rightly) as recently defeated ex-robbers.

This caused IMMENSE bitterness, some of which was classified as mental illness, where the treatment caused immense bitterness too, and I think souls were lost because of this.

And this was what God did not want to do or want the Israelites to do back then.

However, in the NT there can be no such occasion, since Matth 28 gives a call for the Church to convert ALL nations. How many is ALL? ALL. Can a nation annihiliated be converted? No.

The Assyrian apparently will annihiliate a nation or try to, even if he didn't want to. I don't think he's a Christian and would not want to be that man.

And even under the Old Law, that kind of act would have been murder without the order of God, just as the act of an executioner would now be murder without the order of the judge and his sovereign (in US often governor).

V

7:45 UN give God a trial?

Didn't they already do that back under Caiaphas?

VI

10:16 DNA of apes.

Let us say, for instance, the time they develop a digestive apparatus under gestation is similar to ours, because the disgestive apparatus is similar, why should they NOT have similar DNA for their digestive apparatus?

There is ONE pseudo-gene we have, which with one "DNA-letter" (base) different would have been able to code for vitamin C produced by the body. Apes share the same defect. Guinea pigs have a defect in same gene too.

So, God punishes Adam and Eve by destroying that gene (part of what makes us mortal), or he destroys it when shortening life spans. Either way, he destroyes it for apes too, because they are so to speak a parody of man, and for guinea pigs, because they are close to the modern man who knows about vitamin C, so as to give us an extra cause for empathy for them.

As for extremities, the human genome for hands and feet must be more complex than the ape genome for fore-hands and back-hands. But the part they have might very well have similarities to the part which directs the fetal development of our hands with fingers and thumb : because the result is pretty similar too. However, man has a capacity for a better precision grip.

Ah, you said basically same thing a bit later.

VII

14:47

Do you have one man or woman around who knows French?

I gave your solution/the one I also learned in Edgar Andrews' FNTN (before I knew of you) to a couple of evolutionists, they told me that would need either Sun being lots closer or else a nuclear war or sth.

I actually didn't believe them, I wrote an essay on the topic basically restating your theory.

However, I tried to do a table on Carbon 14 buildup in atmosphere, starting with a level at time of Flood which could give erroneous datings for 20,000 - 50,000 years. It was supposed to account for among other things a stable level the last 2500 years, since this is a period in which C14 dates and proven historical dates tend to coincide very closely.

Actually, there has been a spurt. Cosmic radiation would have been stronger at Flood then now, I calculated roughly twenty times stronger. At least if Abraham's Ur is the one found by Woolley, south of Baghdad. COULD also be Urfa/Edessa in Turkey, near Göbekli Tepe.

NOW ... twenty times stronger sounds much. But we have 0.39 milliSieverts per year in medium from cosmos around the globe, twenty times that is 7.8 mSvs per year, not much more than total background radiation in Princeton.

Here is link one of that essay series.

New blog on the kid : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

There are ten. Last one is broader. Links between them in top section of each post.

My conditions for use are a bit similar to yours:

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

I've sent it around to 70 Catholic mainly pastors (two Eastern non-Catholics as well) - the ten essays, that is.

Some Comments on a Kent Hovind Video : Geocentrism and Catholicism Defended

I think I congratulated him to his freedom on a shorter test video. So, that one is not here.

Q&A Session with Dr. Kent Hovind - answering a few emails
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMQiaZD_24s

[Kent Hovind tells us of voiceover and subtitles:]

3:19 - a Dutch or a Swede, a German or an Italian, an Austrian or a Swiss would probably be very young if needing your material in voice over or subtitles. These people's have school authorities very aware of the international status of English compared to their own languages, and though I am against school compulsion and government regulations about curricula (except banning very bad stuff), I acknowledge this has had a beneficial effect on English levels in our countries. English is usually learnt in British spelling (which doesn't affect comprehensibility of videos) and Standard British Pronunciation (which makes people think "wow, he's pronouncing the Rs" when they hear Irish, Scottish, Commonwealth except Indias, and most of US).

[Hovind on Geocentrism subject:]

4:42 "the earth is round and the earth goes around the sun" [and revolves around its own axis every day] "the Heliocentric theory".

With respect Mr Hovind, Flat Earth is distinct from Geocentrism. St Augustine was Geocentric, but not Flat Earth.

A certain small percentage of Jews and possibly even Nestorians would probably oppose Round Earth - but hardly Catholics going by Church Fathers like St Augustine for understanding of Holy Writte.

And a Round Earth is proven by voyages by Vasco da Gama and onward - but a Heliocentric solar system with Earth OF it (moving with a normal orbit) and not just INSIDE it (perhaps unusually being centre for an orbit of the Sun) - what geographer has proven that one? Han Solo? I don't believe he exists.

Now, before posting this, I will hear how you reason about it.

5:12 Top sail - a good point for Earth being at least bent, of not necessarily bent all round itself as a globe.

I wonder if Hindoos (flat earthers) invented the chapati pan as a model of a convex but still in the main disc shaped Earth. Then they went on to fry chapatis on these pans.

5:22 I thought you meant "top OF the sail". Masts with several sails on top of each other were not yet invented those thousands of years ago. But of course, once these were invented (and that was not far from Vasco da Gama's day) the argument for a bent earth was enforced by a clearer view of the proof.

5:28 That is because the earth is curved. Sure. Yes, the Earth is certainly round - well, since Vasco we know that. Up to his day, socker ball globe and chapati pan disc were options.

5:39 Not only is it a disfavour of the Gospel, but the modern flat earth maps (with South Pole as South Rim, these have been around since 19th C.) are three cornered, not four cornered and therefore contradict the "four corners passages" that Flat Earthers use.

If Earth were a disc around N Pole, the outmost corners would be South tips like Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope and Singapore or Australia. India's S tip would be too far in. BUT if Earth is a globe, with main landmass as a rough rectangle bent around it, we do get four corners. Whether you do or do not count America's as part of it, whether you count Atlantic as inner sea within it or as Western limit of it.

6:08 Sun is centre of Solar system - Earth of the Universe?

Well, if Sun annually revolves around this fixed centre, that is Tychonian system which is a form of Geocentrism. Congrats, if that is what you mean, but will turn on again, to check ...

Ah, 6:27 "yes, I think the Earth is moving and spinning"

Why? You have no Vasco for it, as said, suppose you agree with me Han Solo is fiction, so what is your "top sail" for it?

6:30 "Coriolis effect winds, which I don't think can be explained" [other than by Earth spinning]

- What if they can?

God turns the major part of the aether around Earth each day. Stars follow in their level, Sun at its level, Moon at its level, Monsoons at their level, and Oceanic equatorial currents at their level.

Plus explains turning of whirls and of Foucault pendulums.

Yes, those were the physical examples you mentioned.

6:53 "this is best explained with the Earth spinning"

Or with God turning the aether around us each day, from Day 1 to Doomsday, with interruption for Joshua's long day.

7:33 "From an Earth bound perspective"

Check Joshua X. Not the verse that says Sun and Moon stood still (since that is what it would look like if you were right), but previous verse where Joshua, inspired by the Holy Ghost, tells Sun and Moon to stand still, not Earth to stop spinning.

[On Grace and Works, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Isaac:]

33:11

Catholics have a list of things we must NORMALLY do to get to Heaven - like getting where God meets us, to Holy Mass.

And Cain's fault being works religion?

Hmmm, I think there are other Church Fathers than you Mr Hovind. Might even find sth in Haydock from Calvet whom you aften agree with ... yes, here is on 4:4

"Ver. 4. Had respect. That is, shewed his acceptance of his sacrifice (as coming from a heart full of devotion): and that we may suppose, by some visible token, such as sending fire from heaven upon his offerings. (Challoner) --- The offerings of Cain are mentioned without any approbation: those of Abel are the firstlings and fat, or the very best; by which he testified, that he acknowledged God for his first beginning. Sacrifice is due to God alone, and to Him it has always been offered in the Church. We have the happiness to offer that truly eucharistic sacrifice to God, of which those of ancient times were only figures. What sacrifice can our erring brethren shew? (Worthington; Calmet)"

34:20 sorry, but here you get it wrong.

God will provide HIM himself, not HE himself ... or in modern language, God will provide FOR HIMSELF ... not for any need, but for His glory.

And because He received that sacrifice, as He received that on Calvary later.

Dixit autem Abraham: Deus providebit sibi victimam holocausti, fili mi. Pergebant ergo pariter. [Geneseos caput 22, eius que versus octavus hoc habet]

Sibi means (to/for) him self, not "he by himself". Jerome beats the KJV translators by 11 - 12 centuries plus a "Reformation" less than they.

34:35 Jesus is both the lamb and the one whom Isaac points to. Making God the Father someone whom Abraham points to.

Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice, well, Christ carried a cross - and it was made of wood.

[While I waited since yesterday, no one has contradicted my comments by answering in combox. I hope Kent Hovind knows to use the "see more" or "show more" feature when a comment is long and partly hidden, and the "show all comments" feature when a thread of comments only shows the last one.]

... on Who Can Forgive Sins

1:44:59
[of The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (6 of 7): The Hovind Theory]

If it comes to coming to Heaven, Kent Hovind is less useful than when it comes to defending truths about Genesis.

If your Church has one of THESE, you might be doing the right thing:

Catholic Encyclopedia > A > Altar Rail
http://newadvent.org/cathen/01356c.htm

dannyv84oz

Catholicism has to be the largest religious joke on planet earth. It has left the truth of the bible and is making up its own doctrines, with which it deceives its masses. It's a satanic organization, get out of there and turn to the one and only who can forgive your sins and save you from the wrath of the Holy God, not Mary not the saints not the pope, only Yahweh through the sacrifice of his perfect spotless lamb Yeshua.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I hear an echo of Pharisees. "Who can forgive sins, except God alone?"

Well, the Man who was God, and who therefore could forgive sins, gave that power to the Apostles too. And therefore to their successors.

dannyv84oz

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So you are saying that the Apostles were given power to forgive sins? Please reply with bible book, chapter and verse so I can verify your claims (which I believe to be false but I look forward to your evidence). Also I would like to know what part of my previous comment makes me a pharisee?

"But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house." This was proof that HE IS THE SON OF GOD. How on earth do you get that He was just another man who was able to forgive sins of other men? Please read your bilble, you are a man, you cannot forgive other people for sins they committed against God, just for things they did to you, so that in turn God will forgive your sins that you committed against Him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So you are saying that the Apostles were given power to forgive sins? Please reply with bible book, chapter and verse so I can verify your claims (which I believe to be false but I look forward to your evidence)."

Book : Gospel of St John
Chapter : 20
Verses : 21, 22, 23.

[21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes : Gospel According to Saint John : Chapter 20
http://drbo.org/chapter/50020.htm

"Also I would like to know what part of my previous comment makes me a pharisee?"

[5] And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. [6] And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: [7] Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes : Gospel According to Saint Mark : Chapter 2
http://drbo.org/chapter/48002.htm

= Mark chapter 2

Sorry for Pharisee, it just says scribes in the text.

"This was proof that HE IS THE SON OF GOD. How on earth do you get that He was just another man who was able to forgive sins of other men?"

The Apostles and their legitimate successors are also not just another man able to forgive sins of other men, but as said in John 20 given this commission by the one you rightly acknowledged as Son of God.

Your presumption apostles never received that commission and never handed it down to successors is as erroneous as that of scribes not considering Our Lord as True God as well as True Man.

dannyv84oz

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Im sorry my friend but no man can forgive your sins but God alone and His Son Jesus, definitely not a catholic priest, we all require jesus sacrifice as payment for our sins. The catholic church has so much to answer for in regards to the killing of "heretics" of our church fathers who in defiance to the catholic church published bibles in other languages other than latin to enable every day men and women to have access to the word of God without the control of the catholic church taking their money to tell them what the book said, or how the catholic church would hire hundreds of prostitutes for their priests, or the sale of indulgences to men who wanted to rape a virgin and have their sins forgiven by a priest, or the burning to the stake of anyone who chose to disagree with the catholic church. The catholic church has nothing to do with the true God of the bible, they worship money, power and satan. Jesus is the ONLY way to get to God, the pope ain't got any business trying to forgive people for their sins and neither do other priests.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Im sorry my friend but no man can forgive your sins but God alone and His Son Jesus, definitely not a catholic priest"

You are NOT adressing John 20:21 - 24.

"we all require jesus sacrifice as payment for our sins."

Absolution form very much relies on that in confession. "May the merits of Jesus Christ" etc. So, confession is not a denial thereof.

At least not subjectively.

If objectively, show that. So far, you have not.

The rest of your answer was basically unhistorical diatribe.

... on Genesis and Evolution among Myths and Deconstructing a Piece of Rhetoric

For the following video, the main thrust goes to Kent Hovind and his partner, not to me. But two of the things their opponents said (right at the beginning) merit a little more attention than I expect them to give it (I haven't heard all the video yet):

Debate #3: Genesis - History or Myth?
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prbTv_oFRLI

I

19:33 Genesis is just one of many kinds of creation stories? Well, goes for evolution too.

If we look at content, it is actually evolution which is closer to Pagan stories and Genesis that stands out, together with Plato. Plato = Plato in his dialogue Timaeus.

Abiogenesis? Well, in Greek myth you have Chaos producing Gaia, Ether, Nyx and Erebos. In Nordic myth you have Fire and Ice meeting over Ginnungagap, and producing the cow Audhumbla licking a salty stone and the hermaproditic giant Ymer.

Major change over time, from worse to better, from uglier to nobler? Well, apparently Gaia could produce pretty monstruous offspring, even her sons with Uranus, the Titans, were pretty bad, and then a Titan couple produces the first gods. In Nordic myth you have Ymer's grandchildren getting somewhere near good, like giving a wife to:

• Bure - the man Audhumbla licked from the stone
• Bor - his son
• perhaps Odin as well, though Fricco could be a cousin through an unmentioned brother to Bor (who would then also be [the husband of] a giantess)

And like producing Ymer's grandchildren Bergelmer and his wife, who were spared. Sure, spared in a Flood - Nordic Myth is less away from Genesis in that respect. So is Greek, though Flood has another place in it.

But Flood like special creation of man are events, the other aspects are aspects of metaphysics. A New Age atheist might squeeze in World Wide Flood (though not many would) and might squeeze in a special creation of man by ancient astronauts, but neither of them would be a divine event like in Genesis, even if there were a match of storyline detail.

II

28:56 "I recommend that we hold off, until we get some education in biology, to evaluate some of the things being made up here today, I think it is very hard for you or I to make sense of these complicated themes about vestigial organs ..."

If we take the words at face value, it is a recommendation.

As such it could be topped by an equal recommendation to get some education in biology (as in what is going on observedly right now in fauna, flora and bodily functions of man) before we evaluate these complicated themes with geological column, radioactive dating, fossils, tree of life, abiogenesis, tiktaalik, australopithecus afarensis, horses developing from smaller animals, birds evolving from dinos via archaeopteryx, all that - except for those of us who decide with a view to a higher and more sure discipline, theology. For the others, taking time to evaluate claims of mind being or not being a biological, chemical, physical brain function vs. a substance other than physics might also be a good idea.

But I said it was a recommendation taken at the face value. Perhaps it may be taken, perhaps it was even meant as an intimidation, as a "trust the scientists on where they seem right, and if they seem wrong, leave that to the scientists to sort out those more complicated themes". If that is anything like the real meaning of his words, well, in that case they are very antiscientific.

They are basically the words a Catholic under normal circumstances (like not after Vatican II, but before) would take to the consensus of Catholic bishops under the papacy, under the successive Popes one has lived under or has historic knowledge of. As an Irishman, if I detect the accent right, the speaker would perhaps know that attitude. And there is justification for it, like not running after every Protestant who has it figured out what cult Jeremiah meant with "queen of heaven"* ... when it comes to science, we are not dealing with the eternal salvation and damnation and hence are not obliged to be all that cautious. Moreoever, the collective of scientists has not the promises that St Peter and the Apostles and through them Popes and Bishops had from Christ, so we are perhaps less well advised to just trust scientists.

* The Puritans had it figured out wrongly, by the way. God may have hated Ishtar as "queen of heaven" among Canaaneans precisely because she is such an opposite to the real Queen of Heaven, the Blessed Virgin, His Blessed Mother and Handmaid.

III

30:11 "or even if it was demonstrably true, that I could prove it to you"

What a little snake tongue!

Demonstrable truth is precisely what one should believe for. He tries to deny that because "truth is too heavy" - no, it's not.

30:20 Ah, he doesn't need proof for accepting what textbooks say in biology? Or is he meaning he does not need the textbooks just to claim they have proof? Once again, his words can be taken two ways.

30:26 "that's a logical term, better left to the logicians" (legicians?)

Every sane man is a logician when it comes to truth.

30:33 "what we are talking about here is confirming a theory"

OK, but confirming means gathering a lot of evidence which is at least half proving it and definitely nowhere infirming it. And infirming a theory means disproving it or proving its opposite. Which brings us back to logic and truth. Nice try to camouflage the logic you use under "confirming a theory" while attacking the logic someone else uses as "truth is too heavy a word" and such and such a theme being too complex. Nice try, but not with me.

31:02 "even an account like Genesis could explain everything" (all the natural processes you will observe in your life)

Fine admission.

31:13 "we have very limited access to the universe, we haven't seen it all"

OK, means there might be things in it we have not observed. Not that the things we have observed are not in it.

[Nor, though I missed pointing it out, that our explanations would have to cover the kind of things we have no experience of at all.]

31:37 "if you are going to admit microevolution, I think you'll have to admit macro"

I am waiting for a nice little refutation of that from the other team. For one thing, there might be a barrier, like mammalian chromosome numbers. For another, macro implies a need for very long periods of time and there is no proof of that time, maybe even some against it.

Mammalian chromosome numbers:
Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Telocentric Chromosomes of Rhinoceros, check ... Rock Wallaby, check ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/01/telocentric-chromosomes-of-rhinoceros.html

Lack of proof for "geologic column":
Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

No "distant starlight problem" for a young universe:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html and a few more.

31:42 "maybe you should believe it because the vast majority of informed reasonable professional people do"

No, since that is unverifiable. Vaster or slenderer majority is unverifiable within certain limits of statistics done and decided. How many of those are in that respect informed and reasonable and how many are only doing what he is recommending non-biologists to do, relying on "vast majority of informed reasonable professionals" is unverifiable too. How many of them need it in their professions is unverifiable too. At least for the work they are doing.

How many has it been made a social necessity for?

How many linguists have a diploma after saying in class "I don't think Proto-Indo-European was spoken 6000 years ago, back then it was before the Flood and everyone spoke Hebrew"? It is an intelligent position, historically, theologically. But not an excellent way to make a carreer.

From that view point, these words of his are also a kind of intimidation.

32:52 "because all the scientific boards and all the people we trust to cure our diseases"

Meaning you can not get through Med School unless you are a Neodarwinist?

How horrible, if true.

But I don't think it is, and I am certain a few decades ago it wasn't. I am even more certain, it is no use for a doctor. Nor is Heliocentrism, as Sherlock Holmes (modelled on a doctor) told Dr Watson.

"and to inquire into the natural world"

What if I trust CMI or Sungenis to do that?

By the way, after exposing "maybe you should believe it because the vast majority of informed reasonable professional people do" for a minute or two, masterly, he does an even more masterly move : he ditches the argument. He has been intimidating and trying to be impressive and he ditches that to the relief of hearers. BUT when he ditches it, he gives a Parthian Arrow to the other team, since not admitting it was an "argumentum baculinum" but reclassifying it as an "argumentum ex auctoritate". And his last argument, he thinks when we decide we will agree with him, that sounds like an induction script from a hypnotist.

Kent Hovind's Lacunae on Genesis ch. 3

At the very beginning of a video on the Hovind Theory, just first ten minutes:

The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (6 of 7): The Hovind Theory
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfffRl4RT4s

Just before 7:00, notice how Hovind omits part of the Words of God to the serpent.

Basically: I will put enmity between you and the woman and between her seed and your seed. And you will sting her/his heel, she/he will crush your head.

Mary was destined from there to be Satan's enemy, just as Her Son was destined to be Antichrist's enemy. That means Mary was without sin from the first moment of conception.

"God's welfare programme is real simple: you don't work, you don't eat"

No. Not exactly. On a collective level, yes. But not on the level of every individual.

It is however "he who WILL not work SHALL not eat" - implying fasting is an alternative to work. Ιασσας, οι Ρωμαικοι! Greeks work less but also eat less than New Yorkers.

[On work:] "it is wonderful therapy"

For one taking it up, yes. Sure.

For anyone applying it to others against their will? Nimrod comes to mind.

[Note, I do not mean parents when it comes to offspring living at home.]

And as for devaluating the work that someone else is doing in order to tell him he doesn't work ... well, Wisdom chapter 5, verses 1 - 5 come to mind.

Stabunt iusti in magna constantia adversus ... et qui abstulerunt labores eorum ... ought to work on learning that passage by heart again.

It is the Epistle text for nearly any martyr who hasn't his own epistle text. In Roman Catholic liturgy. Not a martyr yet, but there sure are people who devaluate my work.

Latin and English versions interlinear:

Liber Sapientiae, caput V
Wisdom, chapter V
http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/25005.htm

As for Nimrod:

[8] Now Chus begot Nemrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. [9] And he was a stout hunter before the Lord. Hence came a proverb: Even as Nemrod the stout hunter before the Lord.

Challoner comment:

[9] A stout hunter: Not of beasts but of men: whom by violence and tyranny he brought under his dominion. And such he was, not only in the opinion of men, but before the Lord, that is, in his sight who cannot be deceived.

Genesis chapter 10
http://drbo.org/chapter/01010.htm

Now, Challoner was telling England this, way before Wilberforce succeeded in partly de-Nimrodising England. That is why one of his sons became a Catholic. The one whose brother debated Huxley.

... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate, Second Half

Duplet: ... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate 1) First Half, 2) Second Half

To Kent Hovind (speaking about the Flood)

Psalm 104:5 - one of St Robert Bellarmine's proof texts in the 1616 Galileo trial. (It is numbered 103 in Catholic Bibles).

To Jaymen Dick

1:14:29

There was a time at which the official teaching of the Church ...

• "... was Flat Earth" - No. That is bad history.
  
  Church men saying Columbus could not sail were not arguing he would "fall off the edge" but that certain zones were unsurvivable to man and therefore impossible to travel through.
  
  In the direction south it was though human life was not reaching as far down as the Equator, because there it was too hot. Even black man would cease to be able to survive before one reached it. This was before Stanley and Livingstone.
  
  This was not official teaching of the Church men, it was their secular scientific erudition. In the West, the obstacle was thought to be strong winds.
  
  
• "... was Geocentrism." - Yes. And this has never been reversed.
  
  One can possibly say Geocentrism is [since the Settele case, 1822] no longer obliging as after 1633 trial, but not that the reverse has become obliging.

1:14:37 "Major leaders of the Church who were right on many Theological issues - Calvin and Luther for instance ..."

Major leaders of a totally illegitimate secession from the Church. And wrong on many Theological issues, as one can expect of children of Korah.

Here are some Haydock commented chapter links refuting among others these two:

Great Bishop of Geneva!
Does Haydock - OT - take into account what Beza and Calvin wrote? And others?
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/02/does-haydock-ot-take-into-account-what.html

Does Haydock - NT - take into account Beza and the Reformers?
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/02/does-haydock-nt-take-into-account-beza.html

And the Catholic Church definitely did not make a flat earth part of its teaching.

To Kent Hovind

The earth - 1:15:55 - may be centre of the universe, but not of the solar system.

Am I hearing some Tychonian cosmology here?

To Tycho Brahe, I am not quoting, but giving him in a moment a snappy formulation - the Earth is still and centre of three diverse daily orbits: Moon, Sun, Stars. (With the lagging behind of inner orbits, making Stars double the Sun every year and double the Moon every Month).

BUT there is a solar system, of which the Sun is the centre. Earth is in it, but not of it. It is moving, Earth is still, but only one body in it is moving directly around the Earth and all other bodies in it are moving around that body, moving around the Sun.

This is obviously what St Robert Bellarmine was scientifically defending against Galileo's conclusions. [1616 trial, he had died before the 1633 trial.]

To Jaymen Dick

1:22:49 The 40 other methods are all more accurate than C14?

How do you even accurately assess a half life with them?

New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/quarterlife-is-bad-term.html

1:23:24

"It is easily demonstrable in a lab ..."

Sure. I am not denying decay of atoms.

Problem is the unjustified transition between atoms decaying at an observable rate like for very rapid decay, at a calculable rate as with smoke detectors using Americium 241 which has a decay rate of a half life of 432.2 years, to Carbon 14 where the decay rate is more deducible than directly calculable from observed data on same sample (it has the half time of a half life so long ago that historical datings from back then are less than certain) and from there on to decay rates probably much less certain and certainly less directly observed. AND on top of that from there on to assumptions about initial states that we cannot know (except insofar as knowing by the word of God we have a short history and certain assumptions must be wrong since giving us too long a history).

I have a feeling Jaymen Dick is making himself stupid so as to avoid seeing atheist scientists using Uranium or Thorium based methods as the kind of real stupid they actually are.

1:26:07

Geologic column accepted by ALL the major disciples of science? What has a doctor got to do with it? What has an electrician go to do with it?

What have zoologists and botanicists, excepting the palaeo-versions of the sciences got to do with it?

Do palaeo-zoologists really support the Geologic column as much as they accept it?

Check out this miniseries:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
[Use links within, just under title, to get from that message to others in same series.]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

To Kent Hovind

1:28:28

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not bee erected first."

And Hovind, just before that, had given the column too much of its due. I e more than it.

In GC it is palaeozoic, palaeozoic, palaeozoic layers up to nearly the top where there are cenozoic ones. Not yet sure if that means top above palaeozoic ones, or if it involves a move sideways too. I nearly think that latter is the case.

Certain fine adjustments within the palaeozoic field may have gotten their names from GC. "This must be Carboniferous and this Silurian, in GC one of these index fossils was found a mile above the other."

BUT saying Permian and Cretaceous fossils have different dates because where they were in the huge pile called GC is not even true. There are no Cretaceous fossils in GC, as I recall, and if there are Permians ones that would be Permian shellfish just as GC has Silurian and Carboniferous shellfish.

Where you get to Permian land living fossils, they had no place or depth in GC.

Karoo is very instructive, it has both Permian and Triassic fossils. Not one place where the Permian ones lie beneath Triassic ones. Everywhere it is differnet assemblage zones - side by side in a huge area.

Probably reflecting where herds of different beasts - Moschops is a funny looking one, perhaps less funny in reality while it lived - herded together in the wake of the Flood that surprised them.

To Jaymen Dick

1:39:19

Here it is already clear where Jaymen Dick stands.

In Edgar Andrews' book From Nothing to Nature BOTH views are presented. I got it as a twelfth birthday present. Ma knowing I was going up against Evolution theory being taught in school.

I immediately preferred the more strict interpretation of the days - meaning Sun, Moon and Stars did not even exist till day IV. I saw no problem at all with God providing visible and lifegiving light before creating light sources.

The problem comes with Heliocentrism.

Earth rotating could in pure theoretical possibility have been the reason why the light gave night and day ... but what does it then mean that God divided the darkness from the light? Of course, God could have withdrawn light from one half of the Earth, the one opposite Jerusalem (or where it would later stand), where He created Adam.

The real problem is the annual orbit. How would earth for three days be involved in an annual gravitation motorred orbit around a heavier object not yet in existence?

So, obviously I had a motive for Geocentrism. Narnia was good, but even better, since not flat earthed, Middle Earth by JRRT. A certain paragraph in his Letters made an impression.

New blog on the kid : A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/a-relevant-quote-from-tolkien.html

Years later I read St Thomas Aquinas, saying basically the same thing as Tolkien had stated in Silmarillion and in that letter to Naomi Mitchison.

Some years after that convinced me there was no optical evidence for Heliocentrism either.

Meaning there is no problem left with the Genesis account as it stands. AS WELL AS disposing of Distant Starlight Problem.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html

1:45:18

There is much meaning in Death and Resurrection of Christ that is not apparent at first glance. True, indeed enough for a lifetime, to those who study it with their whole hearts.

BUT no new discoveries during adulthood contradict in the slightest what appeared at first glance.

Do you see the difference?

1:46:02

I agree, for once, totally with Jaymen Dick. Evolutionism is totally inept at backing up the Abiogenesis Theorem and at least very important parts of the Evolution Theorem.

I am not seeing any chance of Kent Hovind disagreeing either.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Abiogenesis and Evolutionist Ideology
[Again a miniseries, this time straddling two of my blogs, links within, as stated above.]
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-abiogenesis-and-evolutionist-ideology.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
[Miniseries, linking to accompanying letter with links to its parts.]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Pidgins are no more Primitive Languages than Robinson Crusoe had a Primitive Culture
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/02/pidgins-are-no-more-primitive-languages.html

1:47:34

"Every new discovery they make points to a Creator, not away"

Lots of new discoveries are also substantiating Geocentrism, if you really look at them.

And therefore God as an active upholder of the Universe continuously, not just a Creator in the distant past.

BUT the Heliocentric formulations given by astronomers do tend to point - at least to the careless - away from the Creator.

Though I did have a hard time believing gas would consolidate through gravitation and form a star at age 8. But I was not immediately asking if God did it. I was rather later much more satisfied intellectually with God did it than with Laplace's Hypothesis.

To Kent Hovind

1:48:39

Kent Hovind cites Jacques Monod.

Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex organisms … the struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected ; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.

[Jacques Monod, The Secret of Life, interview with Laurie John, Australian Broadcasting Company, June 10, 1976.]

I agree, of course. In the main. On a very general level. I agree that "natural selection" is a physical evil. That deliberately using it in an unfallen world would be a moral evil. He got some things a bit wrong, though.

Note that Jacques Monod abused the phrase "natural law" to mean "law of the wilderness" or what Locke called State of Nature.

St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle meant something quite other by the words Natural Law.

He is also using the words "our modern ethics" to mean partly what Natural Law would require or at least approve in protection of the weak, and partly, perhaps, though it is not made directly apparent here, pushing "non-selectivity" too far. As well as other selected items from the Natural Law. Too far meaning at the expense of other aspects of the Natural Law. Which not only states that the weak, as in children, should be protected, but also that it is with very few exceptions the family that should do so.

To Jaymen Dick

1:53:38

"These are generations, these are indefinite long periods of time."

This is reading "generations" as it is often used contextually, when saying "generations later" as in great grandson of great grandson later. But there it means generations of human beings.

Generations both in that other context and here come from the Latin for "coming into be" in passive (generari) or "making to be" in the active (generare).

I suppose the Hebrew Toledoth has a similar meaning. At least, the most basic meaning cannot be the time it takes for a human son to grow up and engender a human grandson and so on to the great grandson of the great grandson.

It is not of specific men after Adam, but of Heavens and Earth and all that was in them that this is the "generations" i e the order in which they came to be. Meaning a pretty clear exclusion of Day-Age theory like moves like Sun created before Day one, but made directly visible in itself on Day four. Or insects created along with plants rather than two days later.