Marxist Mask Off on Two Items (If Not More)

Some Seek Fault with the Theology of Prayer · Marxist Mask Off on Two Items (If Not More)

One of the Wildest Things I've Ever Heard a Creationist Say (And Why it Matters)
Creation Myths | 16.IV.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNqHHXa4uOo

Your view on us communicating better now is obviously moot.

But you have at least confirmed that the cultural shift exists.

If you match one sentence 1750 to one sentence 2025, you may see some gain in clarity and much gain in brevity. But if you translate one sentence 1750 and make sure to say all the same things, in your chronolect, you will pretty certainly find more sentences, less connection between them, more repetition, so, not just less clarity, but also less brevity.

I happen to agree with you it's not a loss in brain power. It could be a loss in average brain power of the average reader, simply because more are reading. It could be an effect of watching TV, as I heard in the mid 90's, from a colleague, when I was teaching, or it could be, my view, a lowering of standards of what you teach, in order to adapt to lack of interest in more and more compulsory students with less and less hope the subjects will be mostly relevant to their life after school. So, it's not a loss of total brain power, I agree, but it's not a gain in communication skills either.

11:13 Did I get you right?

Someone who believes God is constantly intervening is, according to you, ipso facto, not doing science?

St. Albert, a good optics and biology researcher, Nicolas Steno (I nearly said St. I believe he was a saint when Catholic missionary in the North), a good anatomist and founder of Geology and also a certain Mersenne, founder of acoustics, were not doing science?

I think YOU let the mask off here.

Namely, you are making science less of a method and more of a doctrine. You are making it a materialistic statement on metaphysics. In other words, from a Christian perspective, you have to be wrong to actually do what you call science.

11:57 "if there is ongoing divine intervention today, we can't possibly scientifically evaluate anything"

Did I hear you correctly? You said this sentence? It was not some stray memory from a very anonymous youtube channel just answering a comment of mine? It was you, active content creator "Creation Myths"?

I think I heard you correctly and only missed "in the world today" instead of my "today" ...

With such a simplistic attitude of dismissal, you are not very likely to understand your opponents, and you are on top of that highly biassed. It's not a conspiracy theory to state you just showed a bias that prevents you from straightforward evaluation of Creationism based on just evidence and logic. Marxist extra-rules of logic based on hyperbole like this, that doesn't qualify as logic and also isn't simply part of the evidence. It's bias, and the only conspiracy needed to explain your bias is a culture having a tendency to perpetuate itself.

On your own admission, you were not trained to read old books, and that means, you were cut off from the books that could have corrected you.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Did I hear you correctly? You said this sentence?" It's amazing you lack the ability to understand how testing works so profoundly. If something supernatural is interfering, we can't evaluate anything because we cannot test the supernatural.

"With such a simplistic attitude of dismissal, you are not very likely to understand your opponents, and you are on top of that highly biassed" It isn't bias to state something established in science since the 17th century and accepted by even the honest creationists.

"It's not a conspiracy theory to state you just showed a bias that prevents you from straightforward evaluation of Creationism based on just evidence and logic" He's stating one of the basic assumptions in science that is accepted by everyone who understands how science works.

"Marxist extra-rules of logic based on hyperbole like this, that doesn't qualify as logic and also isn't simply part of the evidence" Please stop using words you don't understand as slurs.

"It's bias, and the only conspiracy needed to explain your bias is a culture having a tendency to perpetuate itself" It's how science works. Anyone who took a grade school class in science knows this. This is accepted by theists as well.

"On your own admission, you were not trained to read old books, and that means, you were cut off from the books that could have corrected you" This is gibberish. If scripture could be proven with testing we would not have all the different versions of religion. Faith isn't evidence and science cannot test the supernatural.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "If something supernatural is interfering, we can't evaluate anything because we cannot test the supernatural."

False.

Doctors in Lourdes are testing actual healing and absence of natural explanations on a regular basis.

You can also test absence of "natural" (i e evolutionist or mechanistic) explanations for the hard problem of consciousness, objectivity of morals, origin of human language.

"It isn't bias to state something established in science since the 17th century"

Yes, it's anti-medieval bias, besides, you misrepresent what has actually been established in science since the 17th C.

"that is accepted by everyone who understands how science works."

Meaning Geneticist Nathaniel Jeanson doesn't? Come on, how did he earn his degrees!

Or is "how science works" just your dog whistle for your specific world view?

"Please stop using words you don't understand as slurs."

Are you looking into the mirror? It's a very apt response to you!

"It's how science works."

On some institutions.

"Anyone who took a grade school class in science knows this."

Grade school as in primary school?

Yes, in the former East Block.

"This is gibberish."

To an illiterate like you, no doubt ...

"If scripture could be proven with testing we would not have all the different versions of religion."

I wasn't referring to Scripture, I was referring to scholasticism ... and partly C. S. Lewis, Miracles.

Plus your implication is false. When passions are involved that push for disbelief, testing doesn't help. Whether rightly or wrongly, you say the exact same thing about Climate Sceptics.

"Faith isn't evidence and science cannot test the supernatural."

Faith and the Supernatural are not coextensive.

Faith involves at a minimum that God not just exists, but rewards those who seek Him. Philosophy can only test the former, He exists.

So, correct philosophy can test the supernatural, and a science methodology that a priori excludes it risks doing fake science.

Please be precise about this: since the 17th C. it's a convention that science ignores the supernatural, considering that (conventionally) the domain of philosophy and theology. It's not a basis that science excludes the supernatural. That's more like Bertrand Russell, who, whether you know it or not, didn't live in the 17th C.

hedgehog3180

@hedgehog3180

Do you not know what “supernatural” means?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [hedgehog3180] Supernatural means divine, angelic or spiritual.

This being so, it means sth which regularly interacts with material and biological nature anyway.

I think this answers your question. AND what you meant by it.

12:00 "because anything could be manipulated"

Well, I'd certainly agree that planetary orbits could be manipulated by angels and daily rotation by God almighty, I personally think they are manipulated. Just as much as a pingpongball is manipulated by the players, so it doesn't continue until it reaches the goal of its ballistic trajectory.

But why would that stop you from scientific evaluation? You are obviously fine with lots of manipulated data, as long as your are doing the manipulation, it's known as arranged experiments.

12:32 You are very much preaching to the choir.

I think you are very wrong if you believe every geneticist except Creationists share your badly reasoned concern against any possibility of the supernatural. Yes, lots and lots have certainly gone through that kind of brainwashing, but not all.

Talking to people who don't share your extreme bias is not equivalent to preaching to the choir.

12:45 The statement "God intervenes" is clearly not something a Creationist hides.

It's not relevant on every subject, but the Creationist who thinks he has to hide it has no respect of mine.

And, by the way, I don't think "natural" selection exists. It's properly providential selection. Psalm 103. Verse 21. The young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their meat from God.

Not "from circumstances" but "from God" ....

Nootman

@nootman4771

Does this mean you don't believe that there are substantial accumulated changes resulting from natural selection or that there literally is no such thing as differential reproductive success caused by varying fitness? Because the former is at least a coherent idea while the latter simply denies that any organism can be more or less successful at reproducing which is pretty clearly untrue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@nootman4771 I'm saying success is determined ultimately by God's providence, not simply as a resultant of fitness.

God would often, but not always, priorise fitness.

hedgehog3180

@hglundahl Can you point to an example where God didn't prioritise fitness?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Probably ancestors of Goliath of Gath, for instance.

13:26 "if you're going to describe it to someone who's not already in the club, it's going to sound crazy"

More like, it's going to sound crazy to someone as deep as you in the Marxist club. In 1917 your specific bias didn't flourish sole on the field, it got boosted by ex-Orthodox Russia in the following decades, it got boosted by Carnegie back around then, it had been boosted a little earlier in Prussia, thanks to Kant and Feuderbach, leading up to Marx ... since then the Carnegie influence has coincided with the Soviet influence, into one culture of Materialism.

It also existed in Swedish and English schools when I was in high school. And some American ones. I spent one year on International Baccalaurate of Geneva, preparatory year.

Your bias is the one I have spent years to get socially away from, since I'm a Thomist.

13:35 You are very out of touch with Christian lingo if you take "influenced by demons" as literal demonic possession.

There is a clear difference between being influenced by a culture that worships the demon Apollo of Delphi and being an actual Pythia while possessed by that demon.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"There is a clear difference between being influenced by a culture that worships the demon Apollo of Delphi and being an actual Pythia while possessed by that demon" LOL! I don't know why I'm shocked but it amazes me how arrogant and blind people like you can be. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your "no true Scotsman" fallacy? If Christian lingo were consistent there wouldn't be so many different flavors of it out there. Your interpretation is not the "true" interpretation.

hedgehog3180

Apollo is a demon??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Well, certainly not a good angel.

And giving the calculating skill in ensnaring Laios and Oedipus or later on Croesus into self fulfilling prophecies, a bit like the witches of Macbeth, except those could be fictional, added after the actual story took place, I wouldn't say the Pythia just suffered unguided hallucinations either or deliriums or whatever. At least on occasion, some force guided her trances, and given the results, it did not come from God.

Also, St. John calls Apollon the king of the bottomless pit, since Apollyon is one of the names that Homer (in a non-Pythian context) gives Apollo. In other words, the same demon as Abaddon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] I don't think there is a true Scotsman fallacy on my part, I think "Creation Myths" has seriously misunderstood what "influenced by demons" need imply.

Being possessed by Delphic or Cumean Apollo is literally being possessed by a demon.

Believing Apollo is our best available guide to the truth as being influenced by that demon in a much more indirect fashion, but it is still bad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Take a look at Acts 16:16 too ... the more celebrated Pythias and Sibyls in Delphi or Cumae aren't different. My Latin assistant professor when reading Aeneid VI spoke of the description of the Sibyl of Cumae being exactly like believers but also exorcists see mediums in a voodoo seance.

13:40 No, we don't have to hide "these aspects" insofar as you got some of them right ....

13:55 For decades, including the one when Obama got voted into office, the nonsense YOU believe has been imposed on tons of people.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"For decades, including the one when Obama got voted into office, the nonsense YOU believe has been imposed on tons of people" By nonsense would that be evolution and the age of the Earth?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime As obligatory teaching in public schools while disfavouring private schools and homeschooling, that's part of it.

But on top of that, pro-abortion, gay marriage, things Mr. "Creation Myths" clearly believes, since he's calling out Trump policies.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You seem to think that the government should have a role in private education and home schooling? You're really not coherent anymore.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] I'm sorry, I didn't say the US government was under Obama just staying out, I said it was disfavouring.

You know, more restrictive conditions and all that.

And yes, some privat education in the US is publically sponsored under certain conditions, and disfavouring would have included making those more rstrictive as well. I think if there is any lack of coherence, it's on your own side.

Or your actual coherence is a desparate search for incoherences with me ... not very coherent as a mode of debate, though.

14:13 Abortion statistics show a danger to actual people posed by YOUR beliefs.

"Abortion should be rare, legal and safe" (some said) ... it inherently isn't safe, and when it was legal, it didn't stay rare very long.

14:13 Abortion statistics ....

NinjaMonkeyPrime

All medical procedures aren't safe. Complication exist for every procedure. You're actually trying to make this about safety when it's all about what you find socially acceptable?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime I certainly find murder socially inacceptable.

I also think, for a baby to die through abortion isn't a complication, but an intended result.

It's also demographically suicidal, as nation after nation with pension problems is finding out, and Putin nearly lost to Navalny due to this, what a boon for Vlad that Covid 19 and the Special Operation came around ...

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl And murder has nothing to do with genetics or evolution either. You're getting even more unhinged by trying to bring morality into a discussion about genetics.

It's pretty disgusting that in a discussion about genetics, you tried to twist it into his "beliefs". Do you think biology teachers are also pro gun control? How about same sex marriage? Do they also "believe" in discrimination?

This is borderline bigotry for zero reason except you're angry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime You seem to have missed the video I'm answering ...?

The last five minutes are a political rant.

The video I commented on is simply NOT simply a science video, it's a full blown, many sided attack on Creationism and Creationists and I respond in kind.

Obviously there could be a biology teacher who is Atheist, Evolutionist and at the same time Anti-Abortion and National Rifle Association. But that guy is simply not the man who made the video.

OK, I may have exaggerated, it may have been just three minutes of a political rant, but still ...

"How about same sex marriage?"

Yeah, quantitively in itself less anti-natalist than abortion, but symbolically quite a lot more ...

In other words, a perfect recipe for depleting pension funds while augmenting the number of people dependent on them, because they have no children and most of them no fortune.

hedgehog3180

@hglundahl So do you want to abolish the death penalty?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Unlike abortion, the death penalty typically isn't meant to target absolutely innocent people.

Also, most peoples on death row have already had a chance to allow their genes to contribute to future people working and future people keeping an older generation company.

I don't want to abolish it at all costs or in all contexts, but it has been abused.

14:52 No, the "basic things" you describe as disproving Creationism are ignoring the Founder Effect.

But thanks for the admission, what you believe about the science doesn't actually matter ... you are all politics.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

You think he's ignoring a factor in population genetics, while talking about population genetics? That's like the climate denial argument that scientists never factor in the distance to the sun when projecting climate change. I'm guessing your other comments are going to be equally dishonest and childish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "while talking about population genetics?"

The founder effect and rapid outbreeding actually are factors that have to do with population genetics.

Sorry to burst your bubble about knowing that like everything else better than me, just because the guy I disagree with is an accredited expert.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You missed the point. You're trying to say that when discussing population genetics, he's ignoring a factor of population genetics, without any evidence or reason to make that claim. It's just like claiming climate change research doesn't factor in the distance to the sun. It's baseless, childish, insulting, and irrelevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] My reason is, I'm familiar with the population genetics problems and I'm familiar with the Creationist response.

If he doesn't ignore outbreeding, I'd like him to prove it ...

He is misusing his own expertise in order to make a dishonest point against Creationism.

You are the one who missed a point.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl No, you made the accusation, so you need to prove your claim. Obviously you can't because there's nothing to your accusation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] The proof is this.

When population genetics is alleged as reason why the several ethnic types or if you like race types couldn't all come after the Flood, Creationists answer Founder Effect.

When population genetics is alleged why a man like him pretends humanity couldn't have survived the inbreeding, Creationists answer rapid outbreeding.

Now, your objection isn't in fact all that coherent if you actually watched the video, since I was answering an accusation by "Creation Myths" (I think his name is Dan sth) and so simply saying he had to prove his accusation against Creationism.

But I'm somehow not surprised at you judging my comment as if you had no clue as to what was in the video ....

Coprolites and Dicynodonts

Why Ancient Poop Fossils Challenge Noah's Flood
Dr. Joel Duff | 1 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYkovFP5l-8

11:09 I wonder, why would the coprolites not have been laid down prior to the Flood?

They were deposed on a hill of sediment? Well, they were deposed on a hill of some kind of mudrock, but why would all mudrock be from the Flood and none earlier?

14:30 How volcanic ash gets preserved in a Flood?

Perhaps by mud being deposited over it?

14:51 You have STILL not explained why Flood geology implies this happened after the waters had already started rising.

15:45 Volcano goes off. Ashes are stiffened around the coprolites before the Flood water and mud arrive.

Problem solved.

19:34 Most creatures that died after the Flood didn't get fossilised, like most before it.

Triassic is a biotope of the pre-Flood world.

I've had this contested by other YEC on the supposal that we can't suppose things were deposed in situ, my answer is, sure, a T Rex skeleton could easily have been carried off 500 km, but it wouldn't look as a T Rex skeleton when arriving.

So, when we have an integral T Rex skeleton, it usually is where the T Rex was when it died and was covered in Flood mud.

19:43 Human fossils from the Flood?

Anything covered in volcanic lava and dated by K-Ar rather than carbon is arguably from the Flood. Tautavel man is arguably from the Flood.

Homo sapiens dated to 90 000 BP or 300 000 BP (if that's the latest limit from Morocco), were surprised by the Flood, they weren't buried by men. Hence the lack of cultural attributes.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

Buried by lava is the same as being buried underneath a flood?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime The Bible says:

In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened
[Genesis 7:11]

Now, I take it this means that not just water fountains, but also lava fountains were broken up, possibly both at the same time.

I would place most at least big lava eruptions in Geology at this point, for instance Campi Flegrei, ashes flying from Italy all the way to Czech Republic, in this context.

And THE Flood is not just "a flood" it is a long and complex series of events, many of which are not identical to floods right now. Like the parts when the world was one big ocean, cannot be studied by any events in exact parallel.

The earlier on in THE Flood a volcanic eruption happened, the more and the cooler water was available for the lava to solidify quickly and trap more argon, which is a bias on the potassium-argon dates not accounted for by mainstream evolution believing scientists in the field.

20:12 "in post-Flood rocks"

Well, duh, how do you count post-Flood here, since YEC between them differ on the limits?

I would certainly count Ice age (one of them, and not to be diagnosed by "glaciation speces") and Younger Dryas as post-Flood, and anything higher, but that's about it.

The rest are pre-Flood biotopes.

21:01 Are there biotopes today with a preference for non-flowering plants? I think both ferns and mosses are non-flowering ...

Prometheus Bound

@Prometheus_Bound

Yes, but pollen from flowering plants should be everywhere.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

Was there mention of collecting all the plants with animals before killing everyone?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@[Prometheus_Bound] Never washed away from any object? All year round?

Doubt it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] Why would that be important here?

If you are making a general claim against the Flood as such, why not make your own video about it and let me comment there?

Lots of plants could have survived on log mats, and log mats would also have trapped pockets of sweet water so sweet water fish and plants didn't die from the salt, which would have been less prevalent than now in the Oceans.

But generally speaking, my comments on this video are a challenge to Joel Duff about this particular find, and are NOT meant for you to obstruct about your favourite objections against the Flood as a whole.

21:38 "much further down in the fossil record"

It's not about levels of depth below earth surface, it's about abstract "levels" that could as easily be pre-Flood biotopes.

What kind of biotope today would have lots of ferns and gingkos, but no flowering plants?

Well, that's the kind of biotope these fellers lived in (and shat in).

Prometheus Bound

This is not how floods work. And even then, pollen should be everywhere.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Prometheus_Bound Could pollen from fern leaves ever get washed down by a rain?

THE Flood doesn't work like a flood, since it is a long series of events.

Most of them don't look like inundations which is what "floods" refers to in the modern context.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

If you want to claim that there's one global event, you're going to need the geological evidence to support it. And it doesn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime It's not the one global event that leaves the traces, there are the many smaller events before and below the global ocean that leave geologic traces. Which we very much do find.

Flood Geologists have claimed (and this is based on re-analysis of data from mainstream science, it's not a naked claim) that there are six mega-sequences that occur in the same order around the globe. That's the lithic part.

But the fossil part would, at least for land creatures, be local biotopes.

I know CMI likes to debunk this by saying the Flood could have transported them 500 km. Well, the animals that it hit yes, not the sometimes very pristine skeleta we find, since a skeleton transported 500 km by high pressure oversaturated streams of sand-in-water wouldn't arrive as a recognisable skeleton.

I've spent hours and days and months checking if biotopes are ever found on top of each other and for land biotopes, the answer is no.

AGAIN, my comments here are specific comments to Joel Duff on this specific claim he has against Young Earth Creationism, NOT about your favourite objection against Young Earth Creationism. Do a video (you have better possibilities than I have) and invite me to comment on that instead.

22:17 Yes, you have STILL not explained why they would have been deposited a month after Flood waters started coming, in the Flood geology case.

Sure you are not making a strawman against Flood geology?

Prometheus Bound

It has to be that late because the layers below have to be deposited before those fossils that are above.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

Are you ignoring the many layers that we know exist?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [Prometheus_Bound] I do not know exactly how the layers are lying in the terrain here, but I find it totally possible that along a diagonal hill side, lower layers came with the mud at 3 am and highre ones with the mud at 3 pm the same day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] I am not sure YOU know exactly HOW they exist.

I have not anywhere on earth found that one and the same place has different layers of land fossils on different levels.

My answers were nearly immediately censored, I just had time to copy them:

DYOR = Do Your Own Research (Some Guys are Afraid of Written Debate)

It can be noted that I had thought from the description of a learning curve that Kruger and Dunning were cognitive psychologists, it seems their paper from 1999 (for which only the abstract is available to me, and which abstract is closer to the pop culture idea of "Dunning Kruger effect" than descriptions of the content in the below video) is classed in "social psychology" a very different kettle of fish and one that is closer to the Soviets and to the psychiatric arts of bullying that cognitive psychology. I mean, the latter is the discipline I'd have predicted from the mention of "learning curve" ...

But the "learning curve" has other implications than someone knowing better than the experts suffering the Dunning Kruger effect. Not all experts are of twenty years experience. Not all amateurs in the DYOR tribe are at the beginning of a learning curve.

'Do your own research' and the Dunning-Kruger Effect
potholer54 | 9 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t54I6NKtr4k

"what we know as the Dunning Kruger 2:05 effect is not to be confused with Kruger 2:08 and Dunning's paper as I explained in 2:10 the video description there was no 2:12 mention of the Dunning Kruger effect in 2:14 the Kruger and Dunning study that term 2:17 was coined and popularized long 2:19 afterwards to describe the 2:21 overconfidence of people who gain a 2:23 small amount of knowledge and think they 2:24 now know better than the experts"

O K ... is there any paper by any expert (outside psychiatry) that deals with this overconfidence?

Or is it just a meme among the Left?

Atypical Chad

@Atypical_Chad

In the time it took you to comment, you could've googled "dunning Krueger effect study" and have gotten an answer.

Note

This is not an empty channel, but on the other hand, his videos are short clips from video games.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Atypical_Chad I suppose you did.

1) What study did you find?
2) Was it by someone who wasn't a psychiatrist?

Note

Above comment was censored.

At least it disappeared.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

How are you struggling with a term used in pop culture and why do you feel the need to attribute it to a side?

Ed T.

@edt.5118

Hglundahl. Woops, there it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Thanks for noting it's a pop culture term.

Sounds very different from serious expertise about how people work (for instance by cognitive psychologists).

8:46 When was the last time you were sceptical about Heliocentrism and Evolution?

And, as simple a question as how we know the Earth is round.

Magellan wasn't a scientist. He was a traveller. Far more reliable people. The observations of Magellan add up to Earth having a curvature that goes full circle in the East-West direction.

And Irving is probably less of a science sceptic than a history sceptic.

9:37 It may be less than 1 % of what the experienced researcher knows in terms of facts.

It will be way more than 1 % or than 10 % and may approach 100 % of the general outline of the subject.

Do you know why?

Because that's the exact part that's presented first. The experienced researcher of 20 years usually has a very similar view of the general outline (unless his field has been revolutionised) as he did when he started. Given that Göbekli Tepe was found more like 40 years ago, this is even true of archaeology.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Given that Göbekli Tepe was found more like 40 years ago, this is even true of archaeology" No idea what you're saying here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Reread.

Your lack of reading skills is not my problem.

10:58 I do have a system for checking with others, correcting mistakes and so on.

The debate.

That's the exact same system Socrates had.

Ben Podborski

@benpodborski5972

Sure… but suppose you’re debating someone whom is a terrible debater, and correct? They “lose” the debate, and later evidence exonerates them.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

You can't be serious. If someone makes a bogus claim in a debate it might take hours of research to determine the errors or even lies. Debate favors the scammer.

Note

Both are empty channels. Ben Podgorski seems to be a young Canadian teacher and mountaineer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime In written debate, the hours are available.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@benpodborski5972 In written debates on blogs, the later evidence can be added in comments, unless they are turned off. Mine aren't.

If you want to resume a debate with me, I usually accept the challenge and add the later evidence, and my comment on it, either in an extension of the extant post, or in a new post.

Zift Ylrhavic Resfear

@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear

If you're talking about two people debating in comments or private message over days, then it can work if at least one of them knows how to check sources. If you're talking about a live debate in front of an audience, then there are techniques so effective at winning a debate despite being wrong that we've named them, like the gish gallop.

Marco

@Marco-it2mr

Debates are often popularity contests.

Of note, there is a reason why one calls it the SOCRATIC debate, and not just the debate. Debate is a wide term, whereas the Socratic debate has clear delineations of a teacher discussing with their students. There's also the dialectic debate, which you frequently will find in scientific meetings.

Unfortunately, the majority of debates are just people telling others what they believe.

Note

Both are empty channels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Marco-it2mr "a teacher discussing with their students"

Not in Socrates ... he took students to see his debates with people NOT his students.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear "then it can work if at least one of them knows how to check sources."

Thanks, I've been doing that for 20 years. More.

16:23 I have a feeling someone directed this to my feed to gaslight me about DYOR ...

Because I just did prove there are four corners on the globe. No, not between the globe and surrounding space. Between continents and the Pacific Ocean, basically. The Maldives, for instance are NORTH of a line from Cape Horn to Hobart, those being the very obvious SW and SE corners. And the line being very clean. Definitely concave, absolutely NO land anywhere along the twelfths of the distance in coordinates. The West and East lines are less clean and the North line convex, but still. It's not a fifth corner.

Try to fact check me on details, well, no. Giving me a video in the feed with a calculated effect of either lowering my self esteem or showing the esteem others hold me in, that yes.

"If Potholer was saying vloggers 18:29 that do your own research aren't to be 18:30 trusted that includes 18:33 himself yes it does that's why I don't 18:37 do my own 18:38 research"

Except, apparently, on the subject of DYOR.

Because, as you started out admitting, Kruger and Dunning didn't do it for you.

[tried to add]

Let me give you a clue.

A scientist upholding an Evolutionist viewpoint may or may not be more expert than his vlogger (or in my case blogger) DYOR critic on the matter at hand.

But he is definitely NOT more expert on the topic of DYOR.

19:47 First of all, you misrepresent the school I had back in the seventies.

I was told, Science can be trusted, because Science can be challenged. No, not just by any other Scientist with the proper training. By people of the DYOR clan.

Second, you misrepresent the connection between Science and Technology.

The most connected you pretend might be between radiometric dating and finding oil. The thing is, there was some time since finding coal was done by checking for Carboniferous. There is coal not classified as Carboniferous.

Petrol ...

"Also, petroleum geologists are mainly interested in rocks from the Mesozoic and Paleozoic Eras. This is because almost all of the oil and gas found so far is contained within these rocks."

Oil on my shoes: The Absolute Geologic Time Scale
https://www.geomore.com/geologic-time-scale/

Sounds like the majority of this is from the Flood.

And 60 to 600 million years would be easy to get in radio[metric] dates (not carbon) from Flood deposits in simple good luck with dating methods.

In other words, the radiometric dates are NOT very relevant for finding the oil.

For other items, you are dealing with things that are pretty easily refuted if wrong, simply because technology will backfire. Astrophysics, Palaeosciences, Predictions in Futurology, usually won't. I'm just now trying to find out how many islands have been abandoned in the Maldives and especially why ...

No, Genesis 1—11 was NOT taken as Non-Literal History in Patristic Times

Reviewing the WORST CREATIONIST CONFERENCE: "The Politics of Six Day Creation"
Gutsick Gibbon | 11.XI.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSYx7L2Rc_A

3:00 "non-literal history" is simply NOT an earlier interpretation.

If you have that from Joel Duff, sorry, he's a liar.

He mentioned St. Augustine and I sent him exact quotes from City of God, and he has neither to my best knowledge recanted from the lie, nor answered in my mail in order to even moderately try to defend it.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

What was said and what's the evidence that it's a lie?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime You could have clicked the time stamp, but I will copy the transscript for you:

in part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 2:57 as being non-literal history

There is an interpretation of Genesis 1 (just that chapter), in which the creation days are not literal days, but that involves creation being done in one moment.
There is also an interpretation of Genesis 1 (also just that chapter) in which the creation days correspond to 6 millennia of world history (Jews may believe this too, like that the Resurrection and Judgement may happen in THEIRS Anno Mundi 6000).

There are also interpretations of other events (chapters 1 to 11) in which they correspond to other things in the New Testament.

There is no interpretation whatsoever that they are not overall literal history, back then.

She, like Joel Duff, are scientists involved in Evolutionary stuff. They are not very savvy on the history of ideas. And I am.

I can look up what Church Fathers actually say online, and I know what kind of books by them to look up and where I can find De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, which is not available for free online.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You're going to have to make it more clear. You're admitting that there are several different interpretations, including non-literal. But then you claim it's a lie to say that every interpretation is calling a literal translation of history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Well, exactly NO interpretation is calling it non-literal translation of history.

The fact is, the Fathers believed in more than one interpretation applying to the same text and a maximising version of this is the Quadriga Cassiani.

It basically says, any given story should be true in FOUR senses, only one of them, the first, being literal, but the story is true in that litteral sense too, because it's true in all four senses. And this doesn't just apply for Genesis 1 to 11, it applies to at least all historic books of the Bible.

When Isaac carries fire-wood for his own immolation, this corresponds to Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary (same location). However, this does not mean that Isaac didn't do that.

The Jews (or the more conservative ones of them) are perfectly right that Isaac did. They are just wrong in rejecting the further intepretation of correspondence with the Via Dolorosa (or if the actual road was maybe shorter).

So, presence of an interpretation other than literal history does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context. Is this a bit clearer?

Specifically, literality of genealogies in Genesis 5 and second part of ch. 11, I sent Joel Duff these resumés with links to two books of St. Augustine's City of God, available online for free:

Book 15 Having treated in the four preceding books of the origin of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, Augustine explains their growth and progress in the four books which follow; and, in order to do so, he explains the chief passages of the sacred history which bear upon this subject. In this fifteenth book he opens this part of his work by explaining the events recorded in Genesis from the time of Cain and Abel to the deluge.

Book 16 In the former part of this book, from the first to the twelfth chapter, the progress of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, from Noah to Abraham, is exhibited from Holy Scripture: In the latter part, the progress of the heavenly alone, from Abraham to the kings of Israel, is the subject.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "Well, exactly NO interpretation is calling it non-literal translation of history" Is there a reason why you keep using a double negative? Is it to be LESS clear? There are zero interpretations that are non-literal?

"So, presence of an interpretation other than literal history does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context. Is this a bit clearer?" Actually that's even worse and I can't help but think you're doing this on purpose.

"presence of an interpretation other than literal history" Yes, there are interpretations that state it was not meant to be literal. That's the entire point being made.
"does NOT equal absence of literality in the historic immediate context" Sorry but this is gibberish.

It feels as if you're ignoring the context of what's being discussed in an attempt to strawman what is meant. The part around 3:00 is discussing the difference between literal and non-literal translations. These obviously exist and that's the point. If Ken Ham demands that a day must equal 24 hours and that "created" absolutely means created from nothing, then that is obviously literal. Meanwhile the Cosmic Temple analogy, by definition of analogy, is non-literal. A day doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour day and "created" doesn't necessarily mean created out of thin air.

Non-literal translations of the history exist.

EvilGinger Miniatures

@evilgingerminiatures5820

I would re read the city of god in the original language if I where you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures5820 Translators are competent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "There are zero interpretations that are non-literal?"

No. I mean there are zero interpretations that say the history itself is non-literal, overall, apart from one little word in Genesis 1.

"The part around 3:00 is discussing the difference between literal and non-literal translations."

Interpretation and translation are not the same thing.

Translation is, like when "king" is translated to "król" in Polish, interpretation is, like when "king" is interpreted as "male life-time ruler".

She was not at all discussing translations, but she pretended the OLDER interpretation is "non-literal history". It simply isn't. Non-literal interpretations are NOT about the history in Genesis 1 to 11 itself, it's about what it points to.

It's not "non-literal history" because it's not history but prophecy.

The interpretation that's about the history itself is also not "non-literal history" because it is literal history.

"Yes, there are interpretations that state it was not meant to be literal."

No. There are not. Not for the Patristic era. Not OLDER ones. She is repeating a lie.

"Sorry but this is gibberish."

Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't equal any lack of correct expression on my part.

Saying Genesis 22 POINTS to the Crucifixion doesn't equate to saying Genesis 22 didn't literally happen.

"Meanwhile the Cosmic Temple analogy, by definition of analogy, is non-literal. A day doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hour day"

The Cosmic Temple analogy is non-literal only about Genesis 1, not about Genesis 1 to 11. It is ALSO not an attested ANCIENT interpretation.

Day, I already admitted, that particular word does have non-literal interpretations, but "one aspect of a single moment creation" is the one that exists in St. Augustine, books IV to VI of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII. "Longer period" is again a much more modern one. ONLY after Lyell.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Interpretation and translation are not the same thing" Really? Fine. The section at 3:00 is about the literal vs non-literal interpretations that are used by people like Ham and others.

"She was not at all discussing translations" Just to shove this right back at you, she's not even discussing translations. She used the term interpretation.

"but she pretended the OLDER interpretation is ""non-literal history". It simply isn't" No, she is repeating what scholars have said now and in the past. There were non-literal interpretations in the past as their are now.

"Non-literal interpretations are NOT about the history in Genesis 1 to 11 itself, it's about what it points to" You've already admitted that different interpretations DO exist. Is it literally a 24 hour day? Not to many. Does "created" mean literally created from nothing? Not to many. That makes it a non-literal translation of history.

"The Cosmic Temple analogy is non-literal only about Genesis 1, not about Genesis 1 to 11" Genesis 1 is part of the history of the universe, and a key part of what Ham is talking about, and what SHE was talking about. It's like you're not even paying attention. Does it say the universe was actually created by God, or that it was adopted with rules by God? The literal interpretation by Ham is a different history than the non-literal suggested by a Cosmic Temple.

"It is ALSO not an attested ANCIENT interpretation" What does that even mean? It's not what people used to think so it's not rubber stamped? Even the interpretation from Ham doesn't match the older ones. You're trying to claim none exists and then saying none exist per the definition you decide. It's like saying you don't recognize an interpretation so it doesn't count and thus doesn't exist.

"Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't equal any lack of correct expression on my part" Actually it does. Word salad isn't my job to fix. It's bad enough you can't figure out how to avoid a double negative but you're also just creating strawman arguments and random "rules" about what "counts" in your mind.

The section is about Genesis 1-11, which is about history, and how the Ham interpretation is literal based while most others are not. If you want to really have a good faith argument you should start by actually sticking to what was said.

• Genesis 1-11 does cover history.
• Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 do in fact exist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "There were non-literal interpretations in the past as their are now."

Goalposts. Motte and Bailey. She didn't just claim there were non-literal interpretations, her exact words are

"part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 as being non-literal history "

What I have said is, earlier interpretations fall into TWO groups, and neither is "non-literal history".

The two groups, which are usually not exclusive of each other, are:

• literal history (Genesis 22 means Isaac carried firewood)
• non-literal prophecy (Isaac carrying firewood means Jesus carrying the Cross).

Genesis 1 to 11 is in this respect no different from the rest of Genesis or the rest of historical books of the OT.

The category "non-literal history" would be a THIRD group, which does not exist.

"most Christians today as well as nearly all biblical Scholars of ancient Hebrew interpret Genesis 1-[11] as being allegorical"

There clearly are Biblical scholars of Ancient Hebrew who personally as Christians or Jews interpret it like that, but they would normally not attribute that interpretation to the hagiographers, whether they identify them as Moses or push them closer to our times.

"Is it literally a 24 hour day? Not to many."

To MOST of the ANCIENT commentators.

"Does "created" mean literally created from nothing? Not to many."

To ALL of the ancient Christian commentators. Because we take these two as canon:

For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart
[Wisdom 2:2]

I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also
[2 Machabees 7:28]

This means, ALL of the ancient Christian commentators take created as created from nothing.

"Does it say the universe was actually created by God, or that it was adopted with rules by God? The literal interpretation by Ham is a different history than the non-literal suggested by a Cosmic Temple"

Which is not an ancient one, at least not among Christians. Remember the one thing I contradicted her on is the interpretations of "non-literal history" being ancient ones, in a Christian context.

"It's not what people used to think so it's not rubber stamped?"

Partly. Matthew 28:16—20 means an interpretation that the Catholic Church has had since 33 AD cannot be wrong.

But remember, what I contradict her on is that kind of interpretation being ANCIENT ones. She's taunting Ken Ham with being ignorant about the original interpretation among Christians, while she is the one who is so.

"Even the interpretation from Ham doesn't match the older ones."

They do.

"You're trying to claim none exists and then saying none exist per the definition you decide."

IF you claim "Cosmic Temple" from pre-existing material existed as an old Christian interpretation, it's YOUR claim, so YOU have to show what Church Father and in what book, chapter, paragraph.

I happen to regularly read up in them, and I haven't found one.

"It's like saying you don't recognize an interpretation so it doesn't count and thus doesn't exist."

Not really. I don't recognise the "Cosmic Temple from pre-existing material" interpretation, but I very much DO say it exists NOW as a MODERN interpretation. Gutsick Gibbon is a contemporary person, so, at least one person, probably many more are NOW interpreting it like that.

However, I do not admit it exists like an ANCIENT interpretation. Now, Gutsick Gibbon is not older than Ken Ham, and she's definitely not older than Fr. George Leo Haydock. She's definitely not as old as the Church Fathers. This being so, the fact that SHE says "older interpretation" doesn't make it older, if you want to pretend it is still so, you have to trace it to an ANCIENT source. St. Augustine definitely does NOT hold to "Cosmic Temple from pre-existing materials" ...

"Word salad isn't my job to fix"

Nor your competence to diagnose. It's not MY word salad, it's YOUR incompetent reading skill.

"you can't figure out how to avoid a double negative"

Double negative is not there in a faulty way, because one of the negatives is part of a term, a citation from her word choice.

To correct your summing up.

• Genesis 1-11 does PRIMARILY cover history.
• Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 about OTHER THINGS THAN HISTORY do exist BACK THEN.

And that doesn't fix her point.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "But remember, what I contradict her on is that kind of interpretation being ANCIENT ones. She's taunting Ken Ham with being ignorant about the original interpretation among Christians, while she is the one who is so" So you have something from the transcript that defines ancient exactly? Because just going by Wiki it is painfully easy to find the concept most definitely pre-dates Ham and his nonsense by a large margin.

Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory – even prior to the development of modern science and the scientific accounts (based on the scientific method) of cosmological, biological and human origins. Notable proponents of allegorical interpretation include the Christian theologian Origen, who wrote in the 2nd century that it was inconceivable to consider Genesis literal history, Augustine of Hippo, who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that God created everything in the universe in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;[2][3] and the even earlier 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.[4]

Is first century not "ancient" enough for her to have a point against Ham? Especially since that also predates the development of modern science, which is also the entire reason why she brings this up?

But wait, something sounds different. What did she actually say again?

*as being non-literal history most Christians today as well as nearly all biblical Scholars of ancient Hebrew interpret Genesis 1-1 as being allegorical or potentially a cosmic Temple analogy in the allegorical interpretation these chapters are seen as true but they are seen as symbolic or*

She's not saying the ancient interpretations at all. She's saying the *biblical scholars of ancient Hebrew*. That's not talking about the old interpretations. It's talking about the interpretations of people who study ancient Hebrew.

"To correct your summing up. * Genesis 1-11 does PIRMARILY cover history" Finally got you to admit that at least.

"Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11 about OTHER THINGS THAN HISTORY do exist BACK THEN" And yet you're still refusing to admit you're wrong.

"And that doesn't fix her point" Probably because you're not even close to what she actually said. She didn't say "an ancient interpretation", she said "scholars of ancient Hebrew". But depending on what you call "ancient", there are allegorical interpretations dating back a long time so it's even a moot point trying to suggest they don't exist. But more importantly is this bizarre hill you decided to die on that a non-literal interpretation about Genesis 1-11 isn't actually a non-literal interpretation of history.

Ham
Genesis tells us that God magically created the world from nothing and the number of days it took in our 24 hour version of days. This is the literal history of the universe.

Others (since the 1st century)
Genesis is an allegory for how God affected the natural world. It is not meant to be the literal history of the universe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "So you have something from the transcript that defines ancient exactly? Because just going by Wiki it is painfully easy to find the concept most definitely pre-dates Ham and his nonsense by a large margin."

Well, I'll give you a broader context.

ham believes the world was created more or less in its present state by a specific version of 2:10 the Christian God roughly 6,000 years ago and that there was a global flood Noah's flood roughly 4,400 years ago 2:18 which only eight people survived by boarding a wooden boat smaller than the Titanic with two of every kind of animal 2:24 and that this flood is responsible for the geologic column from the Cambrian to the Cretaceous as well as every geologic 2:31 signal found therein kenam pushes these ideas through his website and these 2:36 attractions but the real bread and butter appears to be his dominance in the homeschooling industry here in the 2:43 United States the reason for the dominance of evolution accepting Christians is due in part to advances in 2:50 science and the availability of information and in part to a return to earlier interpretations of Genesis 1-11 2:57 as being non-literal history

Let's underline this bit:

the reason for the dominance of evolution accepting Christians is due in part to advances in 2:50 science and the availability of information and in part to a return to earlier interpretations

So, we are NOT dealing with older than Ken Ham, that is already "domination of Evolution accepting Christians", but we are dealing with what they supposedly RETURN to.

That would mean "ancient".

Now, let's unpack her quote.

"Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory"

What she is going to unpack is not allegory.

"Notable proponents of allegorical interpretation include the Christian theologian Origen, who wrote in the 2nd century that it was inconceivable to consider Genesis literal history,"

He was the odd man out. St. Augustine argues against him.

"Augustine of Hippo, who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that God created everything in the universe in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;"

In St. Augustine taking issue with six literal days is the odd item out. However, that issue he does have from Origen.

"and the even earlier 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time."

That only concerns Genesis 1, precisely as St. Augustine's non-literality of days.

These people are NOT an argument against Young Earth. Ken Ham doesn't share the idea of one-moment creation, but if he did, it would take away a talking point or two, and leave the rest intact.

"But wait, something sounds different. What did she actually say again?"

You are quoting a follow up, as after what I originally responded to, in response to you mentioning those.

"Probably because you're not even close to what she actually said. She didn't say "an ancient interpretation", she said "scholars of ancient Hebrew"."

You are confusing what I originally responded to, namely items prior to time stamp 3:00 with an added item, namely what I looked up as after that time stamp.

"Genesis is an allegory for how God affected the natural world. It is not meant to be the literal history of the universe."

No, that is NOT what the ancients (including Origin and St. Augustine and including Philo) said.

That's a very incorrect summing up of their position.

NONE of them use "allegory" as about "for how God affected the natural world". ALL who USE "allegory" make it for Jesus Christ ... as in Genesis 2, Eve created from the side of Adam sleeping is allegory for the Church born from the side of Jesus pierced on Calvary. That's how allegory works.

Origen who actually does say "allegory, not history" (at least tentatively) is in fact saying Noah is an allegory for Jesus Christ.

NONE of them is saying the history of the universe given is an allegory for some OTHER history of the universe.

I actually DID look these guys up.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "So, we are NOT dealing with older than Ken Ham, that is already "domination of Evolution accepting Christians", but we are dealing with what they supposedly RETURN to" No. Her point is the non-literal interpretation isn't new to Ham. It existed long before.

"He was the odd man out. St. Augustine argues against him." But he existed and his idea existed. Your claim the idea didn't exist by just saying "nuh-uhh" to one of the examples.

"That only concerns Genesis 1, precisely as St. Augustine's non-literality of days" And yet it matches to what she's saying about non-literal interpretations from a time long ago. You're just still trying to ignore it because it shows you're not correct.

"These people are NOT an argument against Young Earth. Ken Ham doesn't share the idea of one-moment creation, but if he did, it would take away a talking point or two, and leave the rest intact" Why are you imagining things that weren't said? The argument is literal interpretations and did non-literal interpretations exist. You've decided to ignore two examples in history that show non-literal interpretations existed.

"You are quoting a follow up, as after what I originally responded to, in response to you mentioning those" A strawman doesn't become any less invalid with age. Her quote remains about people who work with "ancient Hebrew" not the "ancient interpretations".

"You are confusing what I originally responded to, namely items prior to time stamp 3:00 with an added item, namely what I looked up as after that time stamp" Again, timing doesn't change a strawman.

"No, that is NOT what the ancients (including Origin and St. Augustine and including Philo) said." Then you've decided to ignore evidence, along with ignore her exact words.

"NONE of them use "allegory" as about "for how God affected the natural world". ALL who USE "allegory" make it for Jesus Christ ... as in Genesis 2, Eve created from the side of Adam sleeping is allegory for the Church born from the side of Jesus pierced on Calvary. That's how allegory works" I'm starting to think you don't know what allegory means. At the very least, claiming the universe was created in an instant and not 6 days is most definitely not literal. This alone supports what she said about Ham. If you want to update the Wiki section on allegory then go right ahead.

In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine argued that God had created everything in the universe simultaneously and not over a period of six days. He argued the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.

"NONE of them is saying the history of the universe given is an allegory for some OTHER history of the universe" They are promoting the idea of a non literal interpretation of the history in Genesis. Which matches what she said.

Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 6 days? Yes.

Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 6 days? Yes.

Did she say that non literal interpretations of Genesis exist long before Ham? Yes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "Her point is the non-literal interpretation"

She doesn't say simply "non-literal interpretation" but "interpretation as non-literal history" ....

"But he existed and his idea existed."

And his idea is NOT what modern Evolution accepting Christians are "returning" to.

"Your claim the idea didn't exist by just saying "nuh-uhh" to one of the examples."

His idea was not an idea of "non-literal history", his idea was one of non-literal prophecy.

"And yet it matches to what she's saying about non-literal interpretations from a time long ago."

It actually doesn't. There is a huge difference between non-literal acceptance of one term and non-literality of a whole passage.

"You're just still trying to ignore it because it shows you're not correct."

I'm not ignoring it. I spent hours to study it in great detail, in St. Augustine's own words. As he stated it, it doesn't argue against either me or Ken Ham.

YOU are relying on an oversimplified summary of oversimplified summaries and saying I'm wrong because I'm actually aware of the real story.

"The argument is literal interpretations and did non-literal interpretations exist."

I have NOT said "non-literal interpretations did not exist". I DID and I still DO say interpretations as "non-literal history" did not exist.

"You've decided to ignore two examples in history that show non-literal interpretations existed."

They do NOT show that interpretations of "non-literal history" existed.

You are then giving strawman on strawman between what I originally answered and a later item in the time stamps.

AND ignoring what I said of the contemporaries, namely that professors of ancient Hebrew certainly would tend often enough to believe personally (if believers at all) that Genesis 1 should be taken as "non-literal history", but they would not attribute that position to the original text as taken by the original audience.

Those who perhaps by now do take it as such would be doing so by reconstruction, they would know they are not relying on a continuum of interpretation that has simply reached down to them.

"Then you've decided to ignore evidence, along with ignore her exact words."

You pretend I'm ignoring evidence, well, LOOK THE GUYS UP. Give me exact quotes from Philo, Origen, St. Augustine, where you consider them as holding Genesis 1 through 11 were somehow "non-literal history" ... her words and a summary from wikipedia is simply not detailed enough.

"I'm starting to think you don't know what allegory means."

If anything YOU don't know what allegory means, and most specifically not what it means in terms of Biblical interpretation. I'll give you the summary from St. Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

This is from Summa Theologiae, Part I, Q 1, A 10. It's the corpus of the article, namely what St. Thomas gives as solution.

And since you seemed to imply that taking one term in a narrative in a non-literal way ("day" in Genesis 1 for instance) makes that narrative an allegory, I'll give you objection 3 and its answer:

Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four. Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

In other words, non-literality of a term does NOT spell out "allegorical narrative" ...

"In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine argued that God had created everything in the universe simultaneously and not over a period of six days. He argued the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal."

Yes, in books IV, V, beginning of VI, where he says taking the six days literally is not very subtle, but good enough for beginners.

More precisely, he argued that all "God said" in Genesis 1 simply spell out a single act of will, and that than the angels were made aware of this single act in six successive apprehensions of it, and that each of them involved "evening knowledge" (seeing things as they were in themselves) for all angels and "morning knowledge" (seeing things in God and giving Him glory for them) for the good angels.

This is NOT what "sensus allegoricus" means, and this is NOT the same as taking Genesis 1 through 11 in a non-literal way. I don't think the word "spiritual" was used in those books of De Genesi ad litteram libri XII (it's some years since, the library where I read them is open tomorrow, not today), and unlike what you summarise this as, St. Augustine definitely DID take this as how the physical world was produced.

"They are promoting the idea of a non literal interpretation of the history in Genesis."

Taking sensus allegoricus as existing beside or even (for Origen) instead of the literal history does not involve non-literal history. It involves non-literal prophecy. Like when Isaac in Genesis 22 is taken as a type of Christ. Another word for "allegorical interpretation" is hence "typological interpretation". This is not limited to Genesis 22. We can see it when Esther is a type of Mary, but Haman of Antichrist. We can see it when Joseph in Egypt is a type of Jesus.

"Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 6 days? Yes."

From Genesis chapter 1. And that is not the only possible "literal interpretation of the passage" but the most obvious literal interpretation of the term.

"Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 6 days? Yes."

They did not argue against taking Genesis 1 as literal event, and they most certainly did not argue against taking events further on as "non-literal history" ....

"Did she say that non literal interpretations of Genesis exist long before Ham? Yes."

She said that interpretations of Genesis as "non-literal history" existed long before him. It didn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime To be complete.

Is the literal interpretation from Genesis 2000—3000+ years from Adam to Abraham? Yes.

Did people long ago argue against the literal interpretation from Genesis of 2000—3000+ years from Adam to Abraham? No.

Including Origen. And it was when checking St. Augustine that I discovered it.

Did she say that an interpretation as "non-literal history" (including presumably non-literality of that time span) was older, not just than Ham, but than Ham's view of Genesis 5 and 11? Yes, unfortunately.