Calvin Smith Paid me a Compliment

This CORROSIVE Lie Is Spreading FAST Among Christians
Answers in Genesis Canada | 17 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXP3N3IvuM

Given I've managed to avoid the tactical and worse errors of Stanley, since my teens, I take this video as a kind of compliment.

Next to God, you have lauded those believing His word, of which I am one.

6:00 You have misscited a verse of Hebrews perhaps in order to pretend the Bible "is the only source of true knowledge" ...

Here is the actual verse:
But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him

Natural revelation can very well teach us the first part "that God is" ... a Hegelian who believes that God is, isn't wrong about what God is, he's just (as CSL once was) wrong about WHO God is.

That natural theology can teach us WHAT God is and that God isn't Hercules (whose powers were exhausted reputedly in the fight against Geryon and certainly at other times, like when he died and didn't rise again) is taught by St. Paul in Romans 1. He specifically mentions "inexhastible power" ... incidentally, this proves Hercules was an actual creature of God, and not a figment of human imagination. Why is St. Paul specifically referring to Hercules? Well, he mentions the punishment for idolatry, and in the Greco-Roman world, homosexuality, specifically male such, was especially associated with precisely Hercules.

So, before we get to FAITH, which goes beyond the evidence we can rationally analyse on our own, we must add of God, not just that He exists, but also that He is a rewarder of those that seek Him.

So, Biblically, Natural Theology, even apart from the Bible, actually does give true knowledge.

8:07 That guy started out copying a certain 16th to 17th C. erudite. Let's quote him:

Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation? I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."*

The Catholic Inquisition held that a doctrine could be heretical if it contradicted the Bible, even on a topic not directly related to the process of our salvation, neither to what God did on the Cross, nor to what we need to do on our part. The Catholic Inquisition held that the Bible, all of it was useful for the salvation of souls.

In 1633, Galileo was lucky (or his former pretty close friend Pope Urban VIII had favoured him) that he was not asked about this view, only about one where he had applied it (and where he contradicts the most probable reading of Romans 1).

10:22 Jesus is where all our beliefs and doctrines come from.

Through NT books, certainly. But also through Apostolic tradition.

If you undermine the Bible or Apostolic tradition, you undermine the Christian faith.

For instance, we know there is a Christological exegesis of all of the OT (which doesn't take away from its literal historic truth, just shows why it is important), which Jesus gave, arguably on more occasions than once, but one particular time is in Luke 24:27. Some very few and highly important details of it are indeed in the NT texts, like St. John mentioning Jesus fulfills the law about the Paschal Lamb (because He is the lamb of God), John 19:36. But most of it, including cross-references between Luke 1, Genesis 3:15, Judges 5, book of Judith, are available through Tradition.

And because the allegoric meaning of the OT is directly related to Christ, so, the literal meaning of it, is indirectly but still actually related to Christ.

12:56 Stanley, on that clip, contradicted the Councils of Trent and the Vatican (1545 to 1563 and 1869 to 1870).

We hold to 73 books, with all of their content, and with the meaning that the Church hath held and now holdeth.

Geocentrism being part of that (Joshua 10 and parallels being part of the prooftexting).

* Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp

"Et in Acadia ego" (quoth Mors)

Discover the First Mass-Deported Europeans in North America – The Acadian Genetic Mystery
Evo Inception | 16 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6igWKqFsXQ

The Vatican was horrified. 4:23 Letter after letter arrived from Rome 4:25 demanding the colonists stop polluting 4:27 French blood with indigenous marriages.

This is a blatant lie. Catholicism isn't and historically wasn't racist. Where Catholic states have been racist, this has been a question of political or social convenience or prejudice, out of touch with Catholic dogma.

Two very different things could be totally true, however.

1) Settlers not waiting till the Miqmaq fiancée was a baptised Catholic. A marriage with an unbaptised person is automatically invalid.
2) Settlers who had left wives in France and preferred getting a new one rather than wait till the wife could afford getting over to Acadie too.

The latter would be rarer, if at all occurring, France would hardly have encouraged married men to leave their wives.

The 6:32 Catholic Church kept meticulous records 6:34 of pure French marriages, but 6:36 conveniently failed to record marriages 6:37 with converted Mikmach women.

If this is true of the Catholic clergy in place, it is very surprising, but especially it is not a policy coming from the Vatican, but from Gallican clergy, tending to independence from Rome.

7:41 "we record them as French, to avoid scandal"

Ah, this means, in clear, that the clergy was locally adapting to the prejudice back in France.

---

13:13 "In Louisiana ... they faced discriminations as foreign Catholics in Spanish territory"

Louisiana wasn't Spanish territory. Discrimination might be due to accent or being less like homeland France than typical Louisiana society, but unless the original text included Florida (which was Spanish), it doesn't add up.

Pascal Lapointe

@PascalLapointe-z6d

Louisiana was a Spanish territory between 1762 and 1803.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@PascalLapointe-z6d W h a t!

It was founded by French (as a colony) and it was sold by Napoleon, as Emperor of the French to the US, so, I always presumed, it had been French all this time ...

My bad, I suppose ...

Looking up 1762 and finding:

November 13 – In the Treaty of Fontainebleau, Louis XV secretly cedes Louisiana (New France) to Charles III of Spain to compensate his ally for territorial losses to Britain.

Looking up the latter, yes, it was a secret in 1762, and then finally revealed in the full open in 1769 (a disclosure in 1764 having been met with a rebellion, so in 1769, after it was quenched, it was settled ...).

OK, you always happen to learn sth. I did today, thank you!

---

The church was 15:13 literally trying to erase the culture it 15:15 had once worked to preserve.

Again, this is a calculation from local clergy, not an order from Rome.

The Acadian story isn't just about 16:05 one small population in Eastern Canada. 16:07 It's about how peoples emerge, evolve, 16:10 and endure.

It's also a case study of genetic bottlenecks, you mentioned the genetic disease Retinitis pigmentosa hitting one in 27 of a subgroup, against one in 4000 generally.

The bottleneck only increased the frequency after the mutation already existed, didn't cause it.

The genetic bottleneck after Eden and after Mountains of Armenia would have been less deleterious, because there were as yet fewer mutations. In each case it was resolved into a few more bottlenecks that were less bottlenecked, because they could intermarry.

Thank you for making a point about Young Earth Creationism!

Why Day Age was Kind of a possibility in 1909, But is so No Longer

The Ugliest Fight in Christianity: Young Earth vs Old Earth
Theology With Seth | 6 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7p4QbPsTrY

Can we agree that carbon dating basically presupposes samples (exceptions excepted) started with around 100 pmC, because that's around what you would find in an old atmosphere?

In other words: if the Earth is billions of years old, a carbon date of 42 000 years means the Neanderthal died c. 40 000 BC.

Why would this be a problem? Well, Neanderthals had speech organs and language brain, so were created in the image of God. They died, so Adam had already sinned. If a Neanderthal died 42 000 years ago, Adam sinned way before 42 000 years ago.

However, this doesn't match the generations in Genesis 5 and 11 of generations between Adam and Abraham.

Say Abraham lived 4000 years ago, and 42 000 minus 4000 = 38 000. I reckon Abraham received oral tradition for Genesis 1 to 11, or if Genesis 1 was revealed to Moses, Genesis 2 to 11. And then started to put things down in writing. Genesis 5 and 11 would show the tradition actually faulty and the 38 000 years would make oral tradition make a joke of historicity. You also cannot appeal to a prophecy accurately revealing Genesis 1 to 11 in such a case, since Genesis 5 and 11 would show that prophecy inaccurate.

Again, if carbon dating needs to be "taken as given" (no reinterpretation by appealing to a lower initial pmC), Genesis 14 isn't historical. Why? Because in carbon dated 2000 BC there is no population in En-Gedi (Asason-Tamar in the text). Genesis 14 is only historical if events (or organic objects, living organisms) from 2000 BC-ish can carbon date to 3500 BC (end of chalcolithic of En-Gedi, according to archaeologists).

Again, same observation, you have Abraham in 2000 BC. In a LXX version, Peleg was born 541 years before Abraham, so 2541 BC. Carbon dated! You have nothing that resembles an abandoned Tower of Babel at this point and you already have a difference between Akkadians, Sumerians and Egyptians. However, if Abraham was born 2015 BC and Peleg 2556 BC, but the atmosphere had rising pmC, in 1935 BC, when Abraham is 80, it's so low things date to "3500 BC" (Amorrheans of Asason-Tamar), and when Peleg was born, it's so low it carbon dates to "8000 BC" (end of Göbekli Tepe, a good candidate for Nimrod's Babel).

2:52 4004 BC as per Ussher would be a pretty probable count on texts like, not just King James, but also Vulgate and Douay Rheims.

I think, even with the text choice, which isn't mine, he did a blooper about Thera dying physically before Abraham's vocation at age 75. In Acts 7, St. Stephen says And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein you now dwell.

Either this refers to a spiritual father, like Sarug not falling into idolatry at all and therefore suppling a "Christian" education when Nachor and Thera couldn't, or this refers to the spiritual death of Thera, like he didn't fall into idolatry long before his son was 75.

However, while he is now most famous, two people have a near equal fame. Both at least partially for one, used the LXX.

• St. Jerome did a calculation, using that of Julius Africanus for the time up to the birth of Abraham, where Genesis 5 spans 2262 years and Genesis 11 (genealogy) spans 942 years. It came into the Historia Scholastica and is now in the Roman Martyrology for Christmas day (St. Jerome however "corrected" the Genesis 5 span to 2242 years, following the most frequent LXX reading);
• George Syncellus (who had shared the monastic cell with Photius, hence the nickname) did one on the standard text of the LXX (Genesis 5 being 2242 years and Genesis 11 being 1070 years, with the second Cainan).

These give Christ born 5199 or 5500 after Creation. There are other choices than ex- or inclusion of II Cainan between them, though all three hold to a Short Soujourn.

3:06 There is a difference between a genealogy having an occasional gap, very probable in Matthew 1 but leaving out only 4 persons if so, with damnatio memoriae, and this could also be the case with the II Cainan if he belonged to the Genesis 11 line, with a Hebrew text leaving him out directly for a fault of his, but oral tradition supplying and then the translation to Greek involving the adding of him in the text, as Greeks didn't have the convention. Alternatively, he's a copyist mistake in Luke 3, having contaminated LXX copies of Genesis 11.

There is a difference between that kind of occasional gap and having a genealogy that's more gap than actual recorded generations. A huge difference.

3:17 Sometimes they only included the big names ... sorry, but you are taking an info that's not about ancient Jews as much as about ancient Babylonians. Archibald Sayce abusively pretended this was the case for Jews as well.

What's more, the inclusion of "he and he was so and so old when he engendered him and him" actually does at least strongly hint to a chronological purpose of the genealogies, one which would be foiled if only including "big names".

But if we played his game for a bit, what would we conclude?

Supposing we had regnal figures, leaving out children dying before parents (then Enoch would logically have been left out from Genesis 5!), there is only so much longer a hypothetic "complete" genealogy would be. If you count Bourbon Kings up to the French Revolution, it's Henry IV, Lewis XIII, Lewis XIV, Lewis XV and Lewis XVI. The actual generations involve two more people between Lewis XIV and Lewis XV and one more between Lewis XV and Lewis XVI. So, eight instead of five.

2262 * 8 / 5 = 3619
1070 * 8 / 5 = 1712

3619 + 1712 = 5331

(compare 2242 + 942 = 3184)

If Abraham was born 5331 after Adam's creation instead of 3184 after that event, that still doesn't put Adam earlier than a Neanderthal carbon dated to 42 000 BP.

Not to mention that to even have a chance of transmitting Genesis 3 over 38 or more millennia, you need to posit a Lost Civilisation, even apart from the Pre-Flood or Nodian one which YEC posit. If you say between Adam and Abraham most lived as hunter gatherers in small groups, which met chaotically and survived by hasards, you have basically given up the idea of historic transmission. And you have added heavy inaccuracies to Genesis 4, not just about Tubal Cain, but even about Adam and about Cain and Abel.

3:26 Yeah, you have shown 3 of the 4 gaps in a 40 plus long genealogy of Matthew 1.

All three descend from Athaliah, the one woman who has some irregularity (prostitute, gentile, adulteress) and isn't specifically mentioned in Matthew 1. That explains very well 3 out of the 4 gaps in Matthew 1.

A genealogy leaving out 10 % being possible doesn't mean that a genealogy only including 10 % is so too.

3:45 We actually can insist on tight chronology in Genesis 5 and 11, we are not free to invent gaps, since in Matthew 1, you don't have a chrono-genealogy the way those two ones are.

Neither Ussher nor the two others used Matthew 1 to calculate the timespan from King David to the Babylonian captivity.*

Were Adam & Eve Real or Metaphorical?
Theology With Seth | 4 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLfUnDhIWig

10:19 How do you know it's "heavily abbreviated"?

If Adam lived before a Neanderthal (he did), who died literally 42 000 years ago (according to the carbon date that presumes his bones started with c. 100 pmC), the Luke 3 genealogy or it's mirrors in Genesis 5 and 11, would not be "heavily abbreviated" they would be distortions into myth, thousands of years even before they reached Moses.

Young Earth vs Old Earth: How Long Were the Creation Days in Genesis 1?
Theology With Seth | 17 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uUiuyB5sZ4

26:46 In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission declared that the Day Age view did not fall on the simple interpretation of yôm, and could be freely discussed among exegetes.

It merits to be said, Pope St. Pius X:

• allowed this decision to be signed by a Day Age proponent
• in the same year canonised St. Clemens Maria Hofbauer, whose personal doctor and friend, Veith, wrote a Young Earth (six literal days) manual.

A free discussion however involves the freedom to bring up arguments against.

The arguments from animal death before sin and from Mark 10:6 are, canonically speaking, wavered. You can bring them up, you cannot claim they are right now directloy stamping an old earther as heretic. However there is no provision in that judgement (contrary to prior statements from the judge in the PBC) for saying "Adam lived 100 000 years ago" or "Genesis 5 and 11 are not literal, patrilinear, normally gap free, genealogies" or "the story of Genesis 3 wasn't transmitted from Adam to Moses by the people in the genealogies" ... none of that was provided for, and none of that was remotely needed before carbon dating, before the understanding that an old atmosphere means the carbon 14 content has been c. 100 pmC for long and before finding men dated to 42 000 years ago. Not just Neanderthals by the way, in case you felt inclined to deny their humanity, which you shouldn't. "Homo sapiens reached the higher latitudes of Europe by 45,000 years ago" is a paper by Dorothea Mylopotamitaki, et al. from Jan 2024. The paper mentions Homo sapiens bones and carbon dates.

If you accept non-carbon dating methods, which old earthers typically do, you'll have the divergence between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens sapiens races going back some 100 000 * n years before this. Concentrating on Genesis 1 without bringing up the length of the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (and Luke 3) or carbon dates, is putting the discussion into a vacuum artificially put 100 years back into the story of human erudition and recent discussions.

Notes:

* For any Catholic reading this. 1909, Pontifical Biblical Commission, only allowed for Day Age theory, not for an indefinite number of gaps in Genesis 5 and 11. Archibald Sayce abusively transferred observations of Assyriology to Bible studies and any Catholic authority citing his work is only diocesanly approved manuals. In the USA, these have coexisted with Baltimore Catechism and Haydock Comment, both of which encourage a more literal view of Genesis 5 and 11. You cannot say "Day Age is a canonically licit licence about Biblical chronology, therefore so is 'gapped genealogies' " since that was not included in the 1909 decision. Significantly, the judge, Fulcran Vigouroux, had promoted both gapped genealogies (as a possibility, not yet necessity) and non-global Flood in his own 1888 textbook of OT theology, a diocesan manual for Paris. This, unlike Day Age, Pope Pius X didn't give him opportunity to confirm as judge in the PBC.

In Response to a Long One from Christine Niles

Gay Confirmation; Co-Redemptrix Confusion & more | FORWARD BOLDLY
Christine Niles | 13.XI.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJALrSptY6g

5:36 This is one beef I have with some Vatican II-ists and even some Trads.

Do they encourage gay men to leave homosexuality for and by marriage, or is their sole offer of conversion a conversion to chaste gay?

How many of the ex-gays who are married are Catholics or were Catholics at the time of leaving homosexuality?

9:22 JRRT invited other Inklings into his home. One of them is known to have been openly gay (he was an Anglican).

I recently heard a horrific story from JRRT's priest son, Fr. John Tolkien, about his childhood.

17:24 Do they have the authority to do that?

Or are people so openly heretical also outside the Church and therefore without authority?

If I were you, I'd contact Pope Michael II to see if he is fine with doing a consecration or leaving it to bishop Clary.

23:19 [Mary is a great stumbling block.]

For a very specific sector of the world.

I thankfully grew up in Vienna, part time, and my mother didn't, she went to a Bible school for summer camp some year before I was born, so, Mary never was a stumbling block to me the way such ideas were to my mother for some time.

23:45 Catholic Apolegetics doesn't need to come as a ministry.

The well known ministry Catholic Answers is unfortunately heterodox on some issues, and even obtuse to limit dishonest.

I saw Trent Horn state that "Cardinal Baronius stated that the Bible doesn't teach us how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" and I think he even said "in the context of the Galileo affair" ...

Now, the one 17th C. source I know of with that phrase is Galileo's letter to Grand Duchess Cristina of Tuscany. And while he says it was said by a Church man who has reached a high place, he doesn't say who that Church man is.

IF it was Cardinal Baronius, a very holy man, a direct disciple of St. Philip Neri, then it wasn't in the Galileo affair, even if Galileo cited it in his affair. How do I know? Because Baronius died 30 June 1607, before the affair broke out. Catholic Encyclopedia cites him as Venerable, meaning, it is placing a very high moral authority in fake service of Heliocentrism or agnosticism on the issue to state such things about Baronius.

However, IF it was Baronius, it could have been in stating Tycho was as licit as Ptolemy as to Geocentric model.

IF it was instead, as I suspect, since it was a man Galileo knew, Cardinal Maffeo Vincenzo Barberini, future pope Urban VIII, then he obviously turned around for any generosity toward Heliocentrism the statement could have entailed, since as Pope he confirmed a judgement against Galileo.

Meanwhile, I'm a writer, and I do Apologetics as part of that. The "Apologetics Section" of my blogs, well, it's not all of my Apologetics, just essays in English on these issues, exists side by side with other writings, some of which are not specifically Christian (though I hope compatible with Christianity).

1) Creation vs. Evolution, against both Atheists and inconsistent Christians who believe Deep Time and possibly even Human Evolution from apelike creatures.
2) somewhere else, named after a comment by Tim O'Neill, an Atheist whom I respect more than most of them, since he doesn't peddle Antimedieval and Anticatholic takes, dedicated to arguing the Gospels are trustworthy to Atheists, Jews and Muslims, and arguing parts of OT are trustworthy to mainly Atheists, and arguing existence of God, also to mainly Atheists.
3) Great bishop of Geneva! whose patron saint is obviously St. Francis of Sales. Yes, against Protestant errors.

Last essay on each would be: "A Km Deep Global Ocean ... Navigable Or Would the Ark Have Floundered?" / "What Are Pagan Gods, Specifically Greek and Norse and Hindu?" (whenever Pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, but apart from that?) / "Obscurity and Perspicuity"

So, I'm not the first Catholic Apologist to not do a ministry, also true of Chesterton and Belloc (but not of Catholic Truth Guild, whom I also value).

In this connection, being a Catholic Apologist is not a position in the Church, and therefore not sth the Church needs to vet one's moral fibre for. If Milo Yiannopoulos wants to do Catholic Apologetics, so be it.

25:32 It so happens, in 2005, the election of Ratzinger temporarily made me think "we have a Pope" (among those in the Vatican).

I am very disappointed, partly with what he did, partly with what I found out he had done as "Cardinal" ... with all affection I once had for him, as a budding Trad, when he died, I drank a Guiness in memory, not of a Catholic, but of a Bavarian (with lots of Catholic culture, but I didn't dare to find him as having actually kept the faith).

He is also known on earth (whatever he may be known for in the hereafter) of heavy disingeniousness on the issue of Fundamentalists. Both because he was active in the CCC, with its §283, and because he was taking some (indirect?) part in the document THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH. It has a section that's both a calumny against actual Fundamentalist Protestants, and a sleight of hand disrecommendation of Fundamentalist positions related to Biblical inerrancy.

So, Tucho citing Ratzi ... no, doesn't mean Tucho is right. As said. There is a specific section of the world that finds Catholic Mariology a stumbling block. Evangelical and even Lutheran / Anglican types of Protestants aren't all of the non-Catholics.

Plus, the point of "co-" connoting sometimes equality doesn't go to the issue that the doctrine has been clearly explained as not denoting that. It's like saying one needs to ditch the phrasing in Catholic Encyclopedia which says we "worship Mary with hyperdulia" because some have taken "worship" as meaning adoration. The United States are a great country, and its Evangelicals are a great section of the non-Catholics, a section in which my mother started raising me as a Christian, but neither the US, nor the Evangelicals, are all of the world. And the same is true of Protestants in the Germanies, to whom Ratzinger was probably being diplomatic.

25:47 "too far from Scripture"?

From Scriptural truth? No. She clearly did sacrifice along with Her Son on Calvary. From Scriptural terminology? So what!

1) Deacon, 2) Presbyter, 3) Bishop is "straying from" Scriptural terminology, since in NT times, the terms were 1) Deacon, 2) Bishop, 3) Apostle / Evangelist / Angel / Teacher, possibly also Prophet.

Normal moral theology says, it's praiseworthy to want to be a priest. It's usually not safe to want to be a bishop, you become one of obedience, not your own choice.

The NT says "he who wants to be a bishop, is after a good job" (paraphrasing), but also "do not many of you be teachers, since they will have a stricter judgement" ...

The NT terms bishop and teacher map on to what normal theology says about presbyter and bishop.

We are not bound to use Scriptural terminology in all we express.

26:12 I thought he was a bulldog for orthodoxy in 1992, and to some extent still in 2005.

29:06 Pope Michael II disagreed on that one.*

29:44 Doesn't the document also speak against Mediatrix of all graces, even as a doctrine?

As welcome as that would be to Protestants, count on backlash from Orthodox, if so.

It was Anthony Bloom, The Archbishop's Prayer School**, which taught me, those redeemed need to be forgiven by Our Lady, and then She prays for them. THEN God saves.

He was founder and for many years bishop - then archbishop, then metropolitan - of the Diocese of Sourozh, the Patriarchate of Moscow's diocese for Great Britain and Ireland (the name 'Sourozh' is that of the historical episcopal see in Sudak in Crimea).

36:29 "until He decides to abolish it"

The usual Catholic view is, He decides to come back and replace it. When the King is physically present, speaks audibly before all, the Viceroy ceases to rule.

This is also the view of Vatican in Exile. Papacy took a pause between 1958 and 1990, it was comparable to another near pause when there were two Popes and therefore both could be seen as dubious, which lasted just a bit longer, 39 years, not 32.

However, the guys usually considered as Sedevacantists actually seem to think Christ has decided to abolish papacy, by allowing an intruder after Pius XII and by allowing all cardinals named by Pius XII and Pius XI to die out before an alternative election could be held. Their view is, only Cardinals elect Popes. That's a law introduced by Popes, and can be either abolished by a Pope or temporarily sidestepped in an emergency such that Popes had not foreseen it.

38:43 My online content is free.***

I don't have a patreon, I don't even have paypal.

There are perks to reading me on paper offline (I've printed out some, but not on a commercial level), like getting things in the logic and topical context instead of scrolling, or reading in a more peaceful environment than over the web (and frankly, many of my posts are totally too long to be easy to read without computers, I don't recommend accessing me on cell phones).

This is why I, for my part, would appreciate someone starting a publishing house. As homeless, I cannot do that myself, partly trouble with bank accounts, but even more, I have no network for selling around me, and I have no place to stock a pile of copies of a book safely.

* "That one" meaning the words after "but" in the following quote:

you can still use the title, but the church is rejecting 28:59 formally adopting that title for Our Lady formally adopting it, including it in the church's prayers, 29:05 you know, referring to her that way in official rights, that's all the church is doing. It's rejecting that as a formal title adopted by the church for Our Lady.

** Probably identic to either "1970 – School for Prayer" or "1986 – The Essence of Prayer (Contains Living Prayer, School for Prayer, God and Man, and Courage to Pray)" ... I backtranslated the Swedish title Ärkebiskopens böneskola into English. It was promoted in Catholic parishes, and I would say, rightly so. From my memory, it contains nothing against the Catholic faith.

*** In response to her appeal for support, from those affording.

Sharing on Eugenics

Is Eugenics really so bad?
Elephants in Rooms - Ken LaCorte | 28 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=493vrSL0lJQ

Mount Everest and Grand Canyon Might Differ by Centuries

The Signs at the Grand Canyon Are WRONG!
Answers in Genesis | 11 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeB6GO9n1cw

1:03 Psalm 103:8* indicates that the mountains rose and next verse that the shorelines were fixed in connection with the Flood ending, but the fact is, you'd agree shorelines were very different in parts of the Ice age, up to centuries after the Flood, but also before King David, so, you cannot fix the rising of the mountains to "same year" by that verse.

I'd say the mountains rose during the Ice age basically immediately following the Flood, but it took some centuries. This is confirmed by Himalaya archaeology, the earliest post-Flood culture found in the Sivali hills are from some century after Babel, which ended 401 after the Flood when Peleg was born.**

6:18 Even if your research proved most layers of the Himalayas were bent (those that are bent) during the weeks after the Flood (I tend to think of those weeks as ground solidifying extra rapidly around the Ark, and it took longer elsewhere), that doesn't mean the actual height of the Himalayas was reached as quickly.

What I said about the Sivali [Siwalik] hills suggests that the ground was still unstable the first few centuries after the Flood, and I take that as indicating a rapid rise in the mountain, still ongoing some centuries after the Flood. But I also think the Himalayas are metamorphic rock (according to the quickest check I get, I'm right) and I think part of the heat was God's way of getting surrounding mud dried quicker. Including by making rivers rise in the higher mountains and once arriving down, draining the landscape by creating a river basin.

The Pyrenees also seems to be unstable to get up in to centuries after the Flood.***

* The video say 104:8, Catholic and Protestant Bibles number and at some places divide the psalms differently, though there are 150 of them either version.
** Siwalik, more precisely Patu industry in Nepal: Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees
*** While mentioning them in the Himalayas series, I added a more indepth research on it on this post: Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man)

Sharing

[Automatically translated]*
Breaking Points | 3 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI64Vo7ucDg

* French translation: La société israélienne s'indigne face au « droit au viol » which would mean "Israeli society in uproar against 'right to rape'" ... however, either it's "for right to rape" or "against rape going to justice" ...

Automatic translations keep proving that AI doesn't understand language, is only able to handle it probabilistically .... here the translation algorithm was the wrong one.