Flat Earthism Isn't the Same as Geocentrism, and Vice Versa (even if Rowbotham promoted both)

Why Does the Bible Say That?
BLK SHP Bible Talk | 30 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1xtJrWsYEo

13:11 When it comes to Genesis 1 and the pre-human parts of Genesis 2, God gave the information directly, the only way it could come.

From Adam naming the animals in Genesis 2, the rest of Genesis could and probably did come from human observers and the people who handed down their accounts.

13:17 I agree about Genesis 5 and 11, Genesis 19 and 47 ...records handed down in the family.

I'd consider them gap free, which you don't seem to do.

In the case of Genesis 1, there is actually Jewish tradition (not repudiated by Catholicism) that Moses got the six day account from God on Sinai.

21:48 If Geocentrism is true, Jesus actually is at the outer edges of the universe, beyond the fix stars.

Jesus is still Man. This means His body still has three dimensions touching space (i e surrounding bodies, including air) around It.

Where?

To a Geocentric, it is obvious, God made a place above the Fix stars, arguably coordinates of Jerusalem (as unlike the Fix stars they don't circle the Earth every 23 h 55 minutes or so). It is inhabitable by man, including by the God-Man and His Blessed Mother.

In the Eucharist, the Body of Jesus is also on the altar. However, there it is not the dimensions of the Body, but of the bread, that touch the surrounding space inside (usually) the Church.

Beza and Bellarmine were at one in a respect. Jesus has a place where He can actually sit down on a material throne. Difference? To Beza, that's the one place where Jesus is in His body, every presence elsewhere is spiritual only. To Bellarmine, His body is "kind of bilocated" (the word technically means something different) so it is also where the dimensions of bread touch the air and paten and fingers of the priest in Mass. But, also ... this is not Jesus' primary bodily presence, that one is in Heaven.

There is a huge difference between the spiritual "dryness" of Flat-Earthism beyond supposed inerrancy, and what riches Geocentrism holds.

So, I've mentioned a correct view of Ascension and Eucharist. Add to this Romans 1 and John 5:17.

If God, as God, didn't work on the Sabbath by turning the Universe around Earth, the one below Empyrean Heaven with Fix Stars as uppermost layer moving, the Sabbath would be stuck on Friday evening on whatever time zone, presumably Jerusalem, where God saw the beginning of the Sabbath.

Equally, by turning the universe around Earth each day, God is flexing and showing His power to be inexhaustible.

Let's say St. Paul wrote Romans 58 years after Jesus was born, that is 5199 + 58 years after creation, in that case, God had visibly since creation shown His power 1 920 077 times. And another 12 or 24 hours between these, over Joshua's army, that the power is His, that of the God fighting for Israel, and not of any other God.

And obviously, one more: in Joshua 10:12, the successor of Moses and namesake of Jesus does two things:

• prays to God for what he should do or was going to do
• speaks on God's behalf to what needs to change behaviour.

Now, Joshua doesn't tell the Earth to stop turning. If this were just his words as narrator, as in next verse, big deal, that could easily fall under phenomenal language. But in this verse, he is speaking on behalf of the Creator.

The kind of people who have taken "adapted to audience" views on verse 12 have then also gone on to pretend that when Jesus drove out demons, that too was adapted to audience. A view I hope you find as abhorrent as I do.

22:13 And Paul did say sth about the cosmos.

Agreeing with Aristotle that God is proven by the movement of the stars around Earth.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]

The words translated "eternal power" can be translated "inexhaustible power" which is what God shows visibly, for the naked eye to see of any man who has lived since Adam and Eve watched the first sunset, by turning stars, Sun, Moon and other planets, around the Earth each day.

22:20 OK ...

For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
[1 Corinthians 2:2]

Did he renounce knowing the names of Jannes and Mambres? No, he didn't. Did he renounce knowing Genesis 5 and 11? We know from the quote to* Timothy, he didn't.

Speaking of which, the young earth timeline could be compatible with modern cosmology, if earth were simply the last piece and God arranged for all distant stars to have their light arrive on day 4. But it tends to go along with a young universe timeline, which is also implied by Genesis 1:1.

And Geocentrism has a bonus for this too, if you have ever heard of the Distant Starlight problem.

You see, with Geocentrism, Aberration of Starlight and Parallax are not two different phenomena depending on Earth's movement. They are parts of a proper movement of the star.

Therefore, the 0.76 arc seconds of alpha Centauri are not an indication that binary star is 4 light years away. And so, over some other intermediate steps, the Spiral Nebula of Andromeda is not a Galaxy 2.5 million light years away. And so, there is no starlight contradicting that God created the universe in 5200 BC.

"The one who sits above the circle of the earth came down and stood on the ground with us."

And told us He (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, mentioning specifically the former) told us, the first evening of a Sabbath doesn't become a second evening of the Sabbath on its own, but God's doing it.

Doesn't sound like He considered the Earth was spinning. Or doing so on its own.

But supposing God moved only Earth around itself each day, it could be a god of only earth, and Romans 1 says the opposite.

23:58 Let's see:

Therefore, if you be risen with Christ, seek the things that are above; where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth
[Colossians 3:1-2]

The shape of the universe doesn't seem to be among the things "that are upon the earth" because St. Paul mentions there is a place where Christ can take a seat.

Presumably not in a spaceship surrounded by dark void with no oxygen and presumably not in "another dimension" than the three we live in, as a body that can take a seat is three dimensional.

Ergo, in Empyrean Heaven, above the Fix Stars.

"And 10,000 years into it, nobody's going to be talking about the shape of the earth."

1 000 000 years into it, someone will be looking down on someone who didn't get the correct explanation and dismissed the Bible, and went to Hell.

Now, the shape. Khûg as you mention (CH is actually Kaph or Qoph, so can be transscribed as KH), doesn't mean ball. However, "circle" doesn't mean automatically "disc" and all of its surface. It can also mean the ring around the disc, and therefore also the circumference, even without a disc. LXX translates "ton guron tes ges" and "guros" means "the turn around" ... God is sitting on whatever He is taking "full circle" around the Earth each day.

On the stereoma I have heard two theories, perfectly literally factual, from myself, that it is the aether that God is primarily moving (in solidarity, so as a solid) with bodies in it, but Sungenis thought that when God made it, the compression was to solid hydrogen, to metallic hydrogen. Hence the name, even if it didn't stay solid.

And on four corners, "eretz" has a different meaning in Genesis 1:10 from Genesis 1:1. In idiomatic English, only 1:1 would translate as "earth", while 1:10 would have "land" or "Middle-earth" (in the middle between interior Hell and Heaven, but also between Pacific and Pacific).

The four corners can be identified, and I just saw a globe that isn't marking the ice, Ellesmere island isn't a fifth corner.

From Alaska to Siberia, the line is convex, with Ellesmere island furthest North. But it's still not a corner between these two. From Siberia to Tasmania and from Tasmania to Cape Horn the lines are concave. From Cape Horn to Alaska, the line is only convex West of Anchorage and on the panhandle. The four corners exist and are a glorious confirmation of two things:

• St. John in Apocalypse knew what no man could then have naturally known.
• Earth isn't a flat disc. The one version of a Flat Earth that would have been Biblical, and was believed by Lactantius, I think, would have been one where the Atlantic has an edge on the West and the Pacific an edge somewhere East of China, and no huge Pacific and no Americas on any other side of any globe. By now, geography rules that out. Rowbotham didn't propose that.

Meanwhile, visions will be brought up by those pretending, as believers or as mockers, that the Bible is Flat Earth.

Nebuchadnezzar's dream is a dream.
Satan gave Jesus a TV show, the high mountain wasn't for perspective, but for solitude, as this happened before Baird.
Ezechiel 1 has presumably at one point been illustrated by a man "getting his head through the firmament" and that illustration has got out of its correct context into the propaganda of Flammarion, who, as I learned yesterday, lost faith over becoming a Heliocentric.

* Here:

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice
[2 Timothy 3:16]

Paul (un-) Ehrlich and "Paul VI"

I am not fully endorsing the position of the Dimond Brothers, as Popes Michael I and II uphold the judgement of Pope Pius XII against Fr. Leonard Feeney.

However, I am interacting, as even with Vatican II-ers, or SSPX-ers. Some of the questions must be ultimately left to the judgement of Pope Michael II.

My final comment was obviously meant to encourage them to submit to the real Pope, since his predecessor was elected by laymen./HGL

Fr. Ripperger: Ecumenist And Deceiver Exposed - And Why He Was “Silenced”
vaticancatholic.com | 30 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjfrn1wwimY

I suppose you agree that St. Eustace went to Heaven, and needed to be Catholic to get there.

However, I suppose you also agree that Our Lord told him, that his alms had pleased Him.

Would you say that sanctifying grace can sometimes be given in advance of explicit faith, or would you attribute another meaning to the words?

Like through the alms given before grace, Our Lord Jesus Christ saw the alms he would later give in grace, or perhaps simply that the alms had pleased one of those already members of Christ, or even many of them, so that Christ was talking as in Matthew 25?

2:03 Would you agree that if there was something demonic in Salem (current Danvers, not the city of Salem), it came through a Calvinist pastor with a toxic need of power?

5:24 I have personally a few months before he died taken an interest in converting him.

He posted a video against the Real Presence, I refuted it. He posted a video with "appreciation" of Mary, but reservations against actual dogmas, I refuted it.

Now, there is a number of testimonies he was getting Catholic, and the night before he was killed, he consulted a Catholic exorcist.

This said, he did pray with Frank Turek minutes before the shot, but he could have mistaken the Vatican II Sect for Catholicism, and believed "the Catholic Church" that it was OK to pray with non-Catholics.

12:28 Did he say "a rational control of births by couples"?

Too close to another Paul, who could have been named Unehrlich, but was named Ehrlich by irony. Lucus a non lucendo or something.

12:28 bis. It could be mentioned, the main miracle attributed to "Paul VI" involved no sudden complete reversion to normal, but a pregnancy continued without amniotic liquid, which is abnormal.

Or that when 7DA pretend that "yes, Vicarius Filii Dei is an official title of the Pope" they can point to two bulls by this antipope. Their one example of a Medieval document by a Pope actually involves a phrase avoiding to limit the title to these words, making sure the total of Roman numerals is different. It's one where the Pope explains to a Khan why he's sending missionaries.

Or that "PAULUS PP" in ASCII adds up to "666" (he could have used PAVLVS or most letters in lower case, and instead of PP he could have used pp, which would also have changed the total, he is also the first reputed Pope Paul who lives after ASCII was invented, precisely as WLADIMIRA cannot impugn St. Volodimir of Kiev, called Vladimir in Slavonic, since he lived before that too, and even VLADIMIRB cannot impugn Vladimir II Monomach, who also lived before ASCII). (Benediktos adds up the same in Greek, but it can be noted that this denier of inerrancy probably took the name to make gematria irrelevant, and the Greek letters are hundreds, tens and units, namely 500 + 150 + 16 ...).

OK, I wonder if miracles attributed to "John Paul II" have really been by relics, days, portraits of for instance Colleen Slemmer whom we know to have been buried as a Catholic, and probably too young to have come across the remarks pointing to a duty to leave the Vatican II Sect, or other unknown saints ....

21:07 Speaking of the afterlife, is there any situation in which the soul of a murder victim could be in anguish and then find relief by execution of the murderer?

Souls in Hell stay in anguish, souls in Heaven aren't in anguish, though Apocalypse 6 states they may have some degree of "impatience" if you like, probably not the right word, and for souls in Purgatory, the execution of a killer is not an indulgenced action.

Unlike walking to Santiago, if indulgence is the purpose (in my case, it was a petition).

---

Ripperger may have a point about Sedevacantism in so far it says the Papacy remains vacant for soon 70 years.

If Unam Sanctam says that subjection to the Pope is necessary for salvation, that suggests that in the case of a sedevacancy the Church is obliged to elect a Pope.

If cardinals can't do it, or won't do it, bishops. Now, if Sedevacantist bishops didn't want to do it, can you rule out laymen?

Because, in the first millennium, Popes, like other bishops, as is still the case among Orthodox, were elected by popular acclamation, i e by laymen.

Also, a cardinal need not be a priest to vote, hence the theory of Hilaire Belloc that Cardinal Mazarin became stepfather to Lewis XIV. As non-ordained he was free to marry, and did marry Anne of Austria, according to Belloc's work on this king.

We Have the Universe We Observe

Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me?
philhellenes | 24 Oct. 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyjNXdEGjO4

Jammsbro

@Jammsbro1

I remember the moment I became an atheist after 20 years of religion. I was standing in work, it was 1:22 on a Monday afternoon and after two years of difficult questions and thoughts it suddenly came over me like a wave, it can all happen without any god. It was the most profound moment in my life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

I remember one night awake after a discussion, night to 24th August 2001, when I realised God could do the Universe THAT WE SEE without any Heliocentrism or ultramechanism.

Key concept : if angels can move stars (if they exist, by definition they can) how do I know the "parallax" and "annual aberration" of alpha Centauri (a movement of c. 20 arc seconds overall and 0.76 arc seconds compared to other stars around it back and forth each year) is only a double optical illusion due to Earth moving? I don't. Ergo, Earth need not be moving!

I

jursamaj

@jursamaj

@hglundahl 2 problems with the "God could have done that" argument:

1. Since God is defined as omnipotent, God could have done anything any way. That doesn't explain anything.

2. If all the evidence we see leads us to false conclusions, and that evidence is supplied by God, that makes God a massive liar. That's hardly a being worthy of worship.

3

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jursamaj 1) For moving a star, even an angel is adequate (though God's the one moving heaven around earth each day).

2) The evidence doesn't "lead" per se to false conclusions, it leads some people to false conclusions through their false preconceptions. Does NOT make God or His angels liars.

Kasperi

@khakala97

@hglundahl God being omnipotent, omnipresent and loving, she would obviously make it so that NO ONE who loves him would be led astray.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@khakala97 Those who are in a state of grace, that is truly love God, do get a protection.

Most do not. That's where the protection is denied.

Kasperi

@hglundahl even if that was true, none would ever know if they were the ones chosen. That is ultimately a waste of time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@khakala97 We are, usually, excepting personal privilege, not meant to know in this life if we are the chosen ones.

We are meant to long for heaven and fear hell.

Kasperi

@hglundahl you will one day not be able to realize you wasted all your days wishing for a divine dictator's favouritism to be towards you. The longer you hold these beliefs, the harder it is to stop throwing your life away. Good luck, keep an open mind! Best wishes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@khakala97 I have my life de facto in more than one way wasted - not by my religion, but by people like you, trying to keep me back from making my money as a writer for my religion, and trying to keep me generally in a position of inferiority, as long as I refuse to apostasise.

But suppose I were wrong - and I'm not - at least I have lived a more fun life than some of you, like one ex-Pentecostal now atheist and now wasting his life an sucking up to his shrinks.

@khakala97 Not to mention the guys wasting their lives on masks, tests and other paraphernalia of Covid restrictions ... your profile picture just reminded me ...

Kasperi

@hglundahl and now I have a little less hope for you than before this comment

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@khakala97 I'd prefer people like you having no such hope at all.

Kasperi

@hglundahl it is sad that the only way for you to realize what I mean is to open your mind, and every comment pushes you away from being open to new ideas. This is unproductive, bye!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@khakala97 Oh, you are leaving - is that a promise?

By the way, Heliocentrism and Evolution are not new ideas to me, they are in my biography old errors I got out of.

Kasperi

@hglundahl oh no constant regression. Soon your knowledge will match your world view - a bronze age one!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@khakala97 Indeed, no constant regression ongoing ... or did you miss a comma or exclamation mark after "oh no" perhaps?

If you pretend someone should be ashamed of a bronze age world view, how about reading a post entitled "Bronze Age, the New Slur" on a blog entitled "Φιλολoγικά/Philologica" - it is from nearly nine and a half years ago, and some of you still don't learn that referring to early parts of the Bible as from the Bronze Age doesn't in the least make me ashamed of them.

Kasperi

@hglundahl it is sad that the only way for you to realize what I mean is to open your mind, and every comment pushes you away from being open to new ideas. This is unproductive, bye!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@khakala97 Oh, you are leaving - is that a promise?

By the way, Heliocentrism and Evolution are not new ideas to me, they are in my biography old errors I got out of.

Kasperi

@hglundahl oh no constant regression. Soon your knowledge will match your world view - a bronze age one!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@khakala97 Indeed, no constant regression ongoing ... or did you miss a comma or exclamation mark after "oh no" perhaps?

If you pretend someone should be ashamed of a bronze age world view, how about reading a post entitled "Bronze Age, the New Slur" on a blog entitled "Φιλολoγικά/Philologica" - it is from nearly nine and a half years ago, and some of you still don't learn that referring to early parts of the Bible as from the Bronze Age doesn't in the least make me ashamed of them.

II

TradyAch

@TradyAch_Yo

@hglundahl - “…without any Heliocentrism or ultramechanism.” > Those are not real terms people use in mainstream physics or philosophy; nor are they actually real words to begin with. There are only heliocentric, and I have never once heard a person utter ‘ultramechanism’ until now, do you mean physicalism instead? Scientists don’t add the ‘ism’ at the end of Heliocentric — because it’s only an adjective, not a theory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TradyAch_Yo Heliocentrism is a theory.

I can agree ultramechanism could be called physicalism. It's probably better rendered in English as ultramechanicism.

What I realised is, God could do without both and therefore we have the universe we actually directly observe.

TradyAch

@hglundahl Thank you for your reply.

Even if Heliocentric is a theory, it’s extremely well-supported enough for it to be true (examples: the phases of Venus; the apparent backward movements of planets; stellar parallax; mathematical predictions and gravity; etc. etc.). It wasn’t just baselessly speculative. Scientific theories are formed when it has enough good evidence for it. The fathers of the Heliocentric ‘theory’, were deeply religious(!) themselves : those being Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton.

I’m not sure much about the God part myself. I’m agnostic, so I don’t whether there is deity or not that created.

Have a good day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TradyAch_Yo "the phases of Venus"

Perfectly compatible with Tychonian Geocentrism.

"the apparent backward movements of planets"

Or, more completely, the spirograph patterns they overall make, again, perfectly compatible with Tychonian Geocentrism.

"stellar parallax"

Unless it's a proper movement of the star made by an angel, or rather part of one, along with other misnomer "aberration".

"mathematical predictions"

Have been improving in zig zag between Geo and Helio. Geo, Ptolemy, Helio, Copernicus, Geo, Tycho Brahe, Helio, Kepler, and for Geo, Riccioli, he at least doesn't go back to less predictive than Kepler.

"and gravity;"

Why would the sheer existence of gravity argue Heliocentrism?

"The fathers of the Heliocentric ‘theory’, were deeply religious(!) themselves"

Some of them were heretics. Copernicus technically wasn't one, but he was closely associated with a disciple who was. Kepler (like Brahe), was Lutheran. Isaac Newton seems to have been both tending to Arianism and to Superstition.

Galileo gave a wrong view of Scripture, the process on Heliocentrism in 1633 might just have been a way to get him off the hook in much deeper waters of heresy (excuse the mixed metaphor).

@TradyAch_Yo Thank you for yours, by the way!

Flood of Noah, Iridium Line

the world's scariest rock feature
Astrid Lundberg | 22 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i_q4_1hFw84

There is one place where you have the iridium line, Kreide / Cretaceous below it and Palaeogene above it.

It's in Yacoraite, and the fauna above and below is exactly the same, sweet water slugs being a notable part of it.

I venture that both iridium lines (K-T / K - PG and P-T, Permian to Triassic) are one and the same line and from the Flood.

It raining glass in that event doesn't surprise me in the least.

Flowers were blooming ... on what hemisphere?

If on the Northern*, this would coincide neatly with Noah's Flood coming in Spring.**

The Sun would have gone out less than months if raining Flood waters cleared up the débris from this.

But if the Sun was in effect out when the forty day rain was giving 60 000 mm per 24 h (60 m higher water levels each day, apart from drainage), if the rain fall intensity generated some heat, obviously that would have come handy to keep the passangers on the Ark from freezing to death.

---

* Bingo, she said it a few seconds later.

** 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]

Haydock comment says:

... This second month is, by some, supposed to be the month of May; by others, that of November. ...

Seems to be May. Or more precisely:

Iyar First day 11 April to 11 May / Last day 9 May to 8 June

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

No, Evangelicals are NOT Worsening the Illiteracy Crisis of Wheatley High School

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: No, Evangelicals are NOT Worsening the Illiteracy Crisis of Wheatley High School · New blog on the kid: Continuing the Tirade of Genetically Modified Sceptic, but Discission, Not Video Comment

Yes, Evangelicals Are Worsening the Illiteracy Crisis
Genetically Modified Skeptic | 14 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g42H2pF5zuM

1:02 C. S. Lewis would have agreed on that one.

Don't use long words when you can use short ones. Don't implement promises, keep them.

He was somewhat sensitive to prole critics. When he was asking what "stirabout" was (correct answer: porridge), he was taken to be affected. Coming from a pretty upper class* home, he had simply never heard it. He'd have been proud to use it if he had known it.

1:37 Did he ever even give an example?

I think Grand Canyon isn't one. "1 billion years missing" between two of the layers, plus, I don't think it has much Mesozoic or Tertiary.

If you can't refute, a FacePalm like Milo gave is always a rhetoric promise one is coming.

I'm part time homeschooled by ma. She was a ninth grade med student and working in hospitals as "intern" (does the word exist in English?) for most of my childhood and early parts of my teens. She was Young Earth Creationist, and certainly no mediocrity at science.

I was learning the laws of Mendel in what would have been 3rd or 4th grade (homeschooled parts of 4th grade, but it could have been in parallel with 3rd grade school chores).

3:28 I look the school up:

More than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, more than 1 million Black and Hispanic students study in Texas classrooms that include few to no white students. State leaders and education officials are working to give all students more educational opportunities but have largely abandoned racial integration as a tool for equity.

Wheatley High School**
https://schools.texastribune.org/districts/houston-isd/wheatley-high-school/demographics/

Neither Ebonics nor Spanish nor Spanglish is the spoken language that standard English is a written form of.

That very obviously affects the mastery of English.

And by the way, neither is heavily dialectal English among white populations, Ozarks is not Texas, but you know what I mean.

The students of these schools, I've taught at an all-white but heavily rural one in Sweden, do not think of school as a way to a good future, and they in their turn don't go all that far to receive instruction which they don't think will benefit them. And while I wasn't there at their peak of investments, I don't think many countries in the West have the kind of resources that really would be needed to get students inspiring teachers (I wasn't one, I was counting on inspired students and not finding them).

5:09 Mississippi wasn't dealing with large groups that read very much less well than a very significant portion.

Mississippi was as such a backwater, and they were taking this as a team effort to come out of that backwater.

Just as the school I taught at had done in the sixties.

Houston isn't a backwater, literacy significantly exists, and the students the poor teacher was crying about are people who can very realistically say "that won't be me" ...

6:22 I am looking at the funding claim you made about Texas.

Texas public schools are funded primarily from local governments. In the 2023–2024 school year, the most recent year of available data, about 47.7% of Texas public school funding came from local sources like property taxes. Another 38.6% came through state programs, and the federal government provided the remaining 13.7%. Altogether, public schools in Texas received $89.4 billion in funding, or $16,200 per student.

How are public schools in Texas funded?
USA Facts | Updated Sep. 30, 2026
https://usafacts.org/answers/how-are-public-schools-in-the-us-funded/state/texas/

This summer, Texas began rolling out $1 billion in public funding that eligible families can put toward private education expenses.

Taxpayers are funding private school tuition. It's helping classical Christian schools expand
By: The Associated Press | Posted 1:08 PM, Oct 21, 2026
https://www.kxxv.com/news/texas-news/taxpayers-are-funding-private-school-tuition-its-helping-classical-christian-schools-expand

So, one billion out of 89.4 billion is "draining"?

I tend to believe you your homeschooling parents neglected maths!

My part time homeschooling mother very much didn't!

6:46 "on the right side of history"

O K ... you ditched belief in God and became a bit too unsceptic about Historicism.

You know claims that history has a direction. Sure, Christianity makes some claims we can't be sceptic about, like it began in Eden and will pass by Armageddon before it gets better, but I mean other claims about history. Like "Lincoln was the right side of history" (I came to think of how much the North states case has to do with Capitalism and the South with rural solidarity after being reminded of the Irish Holodomor, sorry Gorta Mór by Capitalism). Or "Fascism is the wrong side of history" (note, I said Fascism, not National Socialism ... but those guys definitely thought of themselves quite a bit too much as being "the right side of history" ...)

History isn't a moral arbiter. It's not a good replacement for a Creator creating us in His image on where we get morals from.

LGBTQ would by now involve the T of Trans, and that advocacy would probably put actual guys into girls' locker rooms ...

6:53 "science tells us what's real, compassion what's right"

1) This puts "right" outside the realm of "real".
2) Science competes with science, as Milo Rossi illustrated by responding to a scientific claim by creationists with a Facepalm.
3) Compassion competes with compassion, as can be seen from the Christa Pike case.

So, I'm not a Humanist, I'm a Christian, and will remain so.

9:04 I'm not a 100 % fan of ACE social sciences.

However, before they were in the field, a social science teacher had actually made me part time (age 13 up to 15) nearly National Socialist.

She also taught history in grade 7 or 8, whichever it was, and her complaints about National Socialism include the encouragement for mothers to stay at home.

In other words, Social Science came with a very loaded agenda well before ACE came with their loaded agenda in that subject.

Their Loch Ness gaffe is on the level of public school gaffes about history in France. Have you heard a Church council decided women have souls, or that 9 million witches were burned?

Well, that's a very indirect and distorted access to the actual data in either case. The council, during a pause, corrected a young bishop on grammar, yes, a woman can be called "homo" (Latin for man) because it means "human being" (as Americans pronounce "man" in this sense). The number comes from taking a very small principality of Holy Roman Empire, multiplying that rate by all the current human population and then that again by so many centuries (despite the same locality having no big witch burnings in other centuries), which also involves a misreading about when they began.

And yet feminists will gladly put this kind of thing out in public schools.

10:32 That's about as sensible*** as saying French tax payers paid for the jewels of the King's sister.

148 864 livres on three to four years on 5 billion livres per year.

Or 1 billion dollar on a total school spending in Texas of 89.4 billion dollars.

---

To be continued? I stopped at 10:32 out of 24 minutes, but he just reaffirmed his bad maths, so I think this is the right place to stop./HGL

---

Resources on feminist fake propaganda: What Were the Witch-hunts Really Like? and (in French) Pour mon prof de latin, les coupables de cette confusion étaient les Lumières

---

* Actually middle class. Upper middle class, probably, but still middle class. Lawyer, not landowner. But 19th C, even upper middle class could have servants. Now, not so much, and you think "upper class" even if it wasn't.
** Also states that "the campus student population was 61.5% Black and 96.4% economically disadvantaged."
*** His point was tax payers were paying that pretty small ACE school. Which is obviously a very minuscule part of the 1 billion dollar overall.

Jimmy Akin Disingenious or Just Naive?

Can Catholics Believe in a Literal Six-Day Creation?
Jimmy Akin | 22 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X_4c7yneC0

Let me break down a few things about 100 + years ago.

In 1920, a Jesuit in Paris got imprimatur from his bishop (not from Rome) to publish a Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique.

In it on Hexaëmeron, he proposed, for what I thought the first time, the Framework hypothesis, or "six days is a literary form" ... but he did go through the earlier theories and what he thought wrong with them. I was wrong by one year, French Dominicans in École biblique of Jerusalem were proposing this already in 1919.

This is by the way my view on when the Great Apostasy began ... but only small scale. Or was prepared.

Now the earlier theories were:

• six literal days directly continguous to the first act of creation ("literalism")
• the six days are long periods ("périodisme" / "day age theory")
• the six days were literal, but a restoration of creation after a disaster after a longer existance of heaven and earth than what came after ("gap theory")

EACH had defenders in written publications up to 1890's, and the only which went back to before Lyell, before the 1830's, was the first one. In France or specifically Paris (I think the latter), literalism was still prevailing in the 1860's and day age had taken the upper hand in the 1880's.

In 1909, the most famous defender of day age, Fulcran Vigouroux, answered dubia in Rome, and he stated in answer VIII (I think) not that day age was a perfectly licit interpretation, but that it was semantically or philologically possible and could be discussed freely, so both with full endorsement and full rejection, between theologians.

In the exact same year, the Pope, St. Pius X, canonised St. Clement Maria Hofbauer. His doctor, a convert from Judaism, a good friend of his, was one of the guys enumerated in the 1920 article as defending literalism.

Johannes Emmanuel Veith.

Now the Jesuit, his name was Mangenot, by the way, Émile Mangenot, also gave a breakdown on what he thought was wrong with each theory previous to his own framework theory.

Literalism - the Pyrenees are far older than the Alps, and even so there was not enough water to cover the Pyrenees to full height. In other words, if you could argue that the Alps had risen after the Flood, you couldn't do so for the Pyrenees, where the height is incompatible with Genesis 7:19—20. Notably, if the current height was the one back in the Flood. But he argued it must be, the Pyrenees were flatter than the Alps, because they had been as pointed at first and then worn down by time. I'd argue the Pyrenees are flatter because they rose by a different process, if folding by a different degree of folding.

Day Age — all attempts to identify creation days with known geologic periods or eras or epochs had failed.

Gap theory — no major disaster at the beginning of the Quaternary.

I agree on both of these, with a caveat that a defender of Gap Theory could try to exaggerate the importance of the Younger Dryas if he wanted.

Two more things.

1) For the full position of Fulcran Vigouroux, let's not stop at Day Age. He also believed in a large regional Flood, universal as to mankind but not earth, and survival of pre-Flood fauna and flora elsewhere, and in some kind of species fixism. He also believed that Genesis 5 was strict chronology, but Genesis 11 could contain gaps (beyond the only some versions omission of II Cainan). If needed. Preliminarily, he considered Adam had been created c. 5500 BC, using the full LXX chronology. He never got any indication that Genesis 11 actually needed more time, and he never retracted taking these chapters literally, and so he never backtracked on Adam in 5500 BC. He also never got any chance of defending a regional only Flood, as he had done by 1909 for the word yom in the Day Age interpretation.

2) At this time no one had seen any carbon dates. No one had any reason to doubt that a Neanderthal or a Cro Magnon, if fully human (denying which I consider another part of apostasy), were alive after 5500 BC. Even with the two Old Earth theories. (Cardinal Wiseman was the more famous one for Gap Theory).

Now, if a Neanderthal dates by carbon to 47 000 BP (which one near but not in Gorham Cave does) and if he was fully human, which he was, and if the Church up to this time was right that Adam didn't live "700 000 years ago" (as per not-fully Trinitarian WLC), but c. 5500 BC or most probably later, then we cannot uphold any Old Earth theory with good logic.

Only on a young earth could carbon 14 levels have been still this low.

1:31 Where is that one?

Sounds like Framework theory.

In both the Diocese of Stockholm and the now Archdiocese of Paris (which was a Diocese in the Middle Ages), Novus Ordo Catholics have met me with an attitude as if § 283 at least exacted obsequium religiosum and therefore effectively prohibited at least openly professing and arguing for literal six days, literally 6000 to 7000 + years ago in a cosmos that's Geocentric and possibly 1 or 2 or 3 light days in radius.

3:03 How about you decide whether your version of Catholicism allows or prohibits my cases on more than one blog, but essays in English would be on

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

for Genesis 1 to 11 being:

• up to creation of man prophecy
• from creation of man history
• as history accurate (with some possible, in my view probable terminological surprises)
• and accurate about anywhere it touches on science as in how the world always works (including Geocentrism, but there I'd prefer Joshua 10 or Romans 1 as proof texts).

When it comes to what one can believe about Adam, you are so concerned to give all the possibilities that the magisterium allows, not limited to your own position, but when it comes to making a case for literal accuracy, you are suddenly squeamish about there being other positions than yours. I have not hidden your exposé of "Adam as representative" on my blog.

And I have made an update on that not necessarily being your position, but it was one of three positions you exposed as possible.

I hold that the "Adam as rhetoric figure" position changes the nature of the freewill involved in the fall, collectives not enjoying freewill, so that one really reduces to Supralapsarian Calvinism, and instead of hiding "Adam as representative" I argued against it. For instance, why would an as yet unfallen humanity need to approach God by a representative?

3:56 Here is the exact quote from Pius XII, Humani Generis:

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

I get the feeling that he is a canon lawyer who is out of his depth and makes concessions without knowing exactly what they mean, but he restricts them in such a way that they end up meaning "it's history, but the telling is somewhat sketchy and can contain figures of speech" ...

The wording "simple and metaphoric" is not exactly enlightening, and "adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured" is not very relevant. To the questions here asked.

Because you can have Walt Disney retell Paul Revere to boys reading Huey Dewey and Louie, reading from the Junior Woodchucker's handbook and that is adapted to US proletarian five to nine year olds who are a population very little cultured, but it's still an accurate story of Paul Revere as far as it goes.

I recently, after hearing El Pendón Estrellado, heard a more full and accurate retelling of Paul Revere, on a channel dedicated to the American Revolution. There was no factual contradiction to what Huey, Dewey and Louie had said.

4:18 So, Genesis 1 to 11 is not Thucydides (I don't see it as all that different from Livy), and it is not Theodor Mommson (whom Pacelli must have come to know as Nuncio in Germany).

That's a very far cry from endorsing anything like a Literary Framework theory.

4:31 "but it does not favor that position."

Do you mean it does not favour the position it is accurate as far as it goes? I'd disagree about Pius XII. And I obviously disagree with that position.

Or do you just mean it does not favour the position it is a detailed account that can be used as reference for normal human curiosity? I'd agree with both you and Pius XII and on this being the actual status of genre of these chapters.

4:47 ouch

Young Earth Creationism is not just the denial of significant time (more than a week) between the first creation act and the creation of Adam.

It's also the affirmation of Abraham being in twenty-odd generations from Adam, which involves Genesis 5 and 11.

It's also the affirmation that Bronze and Iron age are post-Flood rediscoveries of metallurgy, while the original discovery by Tubal-Cain was in the pre-Flood culture we presumably haven't found yet. Or rather, I'd say, Neanderthals represent the pre-Flood about like Chingachgook represents the 18th and Winnetou the 19th CC AD. But we do not have any pre-Flood Versailles or Radebäul in our archaeology.

It's also the affirmation that carbon 14 levels have been lower and have risen since then, and this is relevant as far into the Bible as Genesis 14. Asasonthamar is Engaddi, and it's archaeology has no significant population between the Chalcolithic (carbon dated from reed mats to 3500 BC), and the Iron age. BUT in Genesis 14 there are Amorrhites there, and Abraham being c. 80, this must have been c. 1936 BC. The kind of fluctuations in atmospheric C-14 content that archaeologists acknowledge do not go down to 82 pmC, which the 1564 extra years imply.

What did Horace say about the nodding of another poet in Ho-?

Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus (had to look it up). But on this issue, you dormitas pretty often, Sir!

5:00 "Catholics are perfectly free to adopt that position."

Why then are my writings basically treated as if on the Index, when defending them?

I have plenty of essays which would not from your position be schismatic, as they don't mention my views on Novus Ordo or on who's the real Pope. I started out with it while still going to SSPX, while it enjoyed the lifting of excommunications, which is still to this day endorsing the same pope as you as being pope. Or actally earlier, but I started showing it to the parish St. Ambroise in this period. Great hospitality as to food, but not a great welcome to a Young Earth Creationist!

[the video isn't over, but I end on this question]

Thunberg

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Thunberg · New blog on the kid: Greta and Chronology

Greta Thunberg blasted as a ‘complete idiot’ for joining France’s riots
News24 | 18 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Seb7W7NSeUY

I'll give a somewhat fair comparison to Thunberg in France.

Imagine a Christian Zionist journalist who goes to Gaza, getting shown around by the IDF.

There are things that journalist won't be shown.

Greta was NOT in the riots in Paris, she was in protests in St. Denis.

If you know who lives in St. Denis, it's very improbable she ever got to see any looting. Or even rioting against the police.