III - Genesis and the Church

Genesis and Science I · Genesis and Science II · III - Genesis and the Church

Q I, Catholic apologetics

Was Jesus infallible?
https://catholicapologetics.quora.com/Was-Jesus-infallible

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Fri 16.XII.2022

Infallible and inerrant.

This follows from Catholic Christology and this is a problem for all “non-Fundie” versions of Catholicism, like anything that denies the historicity of Moses or the individual existence of Adam and Eve.

Q II, parent question

What is the scientific evidence for young earth creationist claims like Noah's Ark, Adam & Eve, etc.?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-scientific-evidence-for-young-earth-creationist-claims-like-Noahs-Ark-Adam-Eve-etc

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Fri 16.XII.2022

I do not remotely claim these events are discoveries of a scientific type or “scientific” reconstructions of the past (which are in fact not scientifically certain).

I do claim these are sth, even before Divine Inspiration is considered, much better and even humanly speaking more reliable : history. In the case of the two items named, we deal with chapters 1 - 11 of Genesis, and apart from the six-day account in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4, this is arguably orally transmitted history from the time of the things happening to Abraham, and then put into writings preserved by the “early Hebrew Beduin tribe” by Abraham.

It may be noted, even later chapters of Genesis would involve a young earth creationist claim.

There is archaeological evidence for one specific item in Genesis 14. En-Gedi, in this chapter referred to as Asason-Tamar, was inhabited by Amorrhaeans and evacuated. This was in Abraham’s lifetime, and Abraham was born around 2000 BC, the Roman Martyrology says in 2015 BC, making Genesis 14 c. 1935 BC. However, the evacuation of En-Geddi involves reed mats that carbon date to 3500 BC.

If a carbon date with very low to nil likelihood of reservoir effect is off by 1565 years, this clearly involves the kind of rise in carbon 14 levels that Young Earth Creationism speaks of, and not just smaller variations in the carbon 14 level, as accounted for with standard Uniformitarian calibrations.

Minze Stuiver and Berndt Becker give, for 1900 BC a little less than 3600 uncalibrated carbon years before 1950. Like 1650 BC.
For 5450 uncalibrated carbon years, they give two possible values of real time, namely 4330 BC or 4260 BC.

So, to claim a real year 1935 BC carbon dates to 3500 BC is in and of itself to make a YEC claim, and that is involved in the historicity of the chapters that even “non-Fundie Catholics” tend to consider as historical.

Q III, parent question

How does the fossil record support or refute the notion of creationism?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-fossil-record-support-or-refute-the-notion-of-creationism

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

17.XII.2022

I would say support. More specifically Young Earth Creationism, with Flood Geology.

For marine biota, we have piles of different layers, stretching over supposedly more than a billion years at least in one place, the Grand Canyon - and there it is marine biota all the way through. Apparently this piece of our earth which now is land, was, for all those times, under water.

For land vertebrate biota, we have “fossils from one layer” in each place, you don’t ever dig down under an Uintatherium of the land (Eocene) to find a shark from the sea (Jurrassic) to find even lower a Moschops of the land (Permian), even if supposedly millions of years passed between these “periods” and there was both time for more than one burial and for more than one change between land and seafloor. What you find instead is, you find each land bioton in a sole layer with fossils, and no other layers carry obviously older fossils below it.

Pretty inexplicable, if:

• fossilisation is easier on land than in the sea
• there were millions of years in each.

Pretty explicable, if:

• fossilisation is easier on land than in the sea
• most of it happened under the flood
• which provided very unusually many chances of rapid burial in both places, but in the sea this also involves new floating creatures floating in over already buried creatures and then getting buried themselves.

Answer II

Q

How does the fossil record support or refute the notion of creationism?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-fossil-record-support-or-refute-the-notion-of-creationism/answer/Peter-White-574

Peter White

Fri 16.XII.2022

The basic problem with Creationism is it completely fails to explain (1) the existence of a huge number of extinct species that (2) each appeared on this earth in a time window that has an absolute order on the timeline, and (3) there appears to be ancestral relationships between species.

To repair Creationism, one has to start introducing the concept of multiple “Creation Events”. But how many? Ten is not enough. One hundred is not enough. How about a thousand? At some point, you are forced to throw up your hands and say “creation is happening all the time, for a very long time”.

“Creation happening all the time” = “the fact of ongoing evolution”

And, to be precise, the fact of evolution is separable from Darwin’s work. The realization of the fact of ongoing evolution occurred first, among a group of natural philosophers who tried very hard to shoehorn everything into the story as told in Genesis. They were already giving up on Creationism, but did not know what to replace it with when Darwin stepped onto the Beagle. Darwin created a mental framework for explaining the observed fact of ongoing evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

17.XII.2022

“that (2) each appeared on this earth in a time window that has an absolute order on the timeline”

Would you like to explain the way you determine that time window?

Perhaps even comment on my alternative answer to yours (my other profile), and you click on the question and then under it you change “recommended” to “recent.”

“and (3) there appears to be ancestral relationships between species.”

How many such can you name? How much ancestrality would remain without the datings?

“But how many? Ten is not enough. One hundred is not enough. How about a thousand?”

I suppose you derive that from dates of Permian fauna and Eocene fauna within your ideology, right?

“The realization of the fact of ongoing evolution occurred first, among a group of natural philosophers who tried very hard to shoehorn everything into the story as told in Genesis. They were already giving up on Creationism, but did not know what to replace it with”

Would you mind telling me who they were and if that “giving up” hadn’t something to do with the new paradigm in geology, since Lyell’s time?

It’s precisely geology I take on in my answer.

Peter White

17.XII.2022

Do you have a specific point on which you are confused, and you seek clarification? Do you have a reasoned disagreement about something foundational, such as Lyell’s work?

My 193 word answer is not going to summarize geology as it was understood in 1840–1850. There are books on that topic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

I am giving glimpses of my reasoned disagreement with not just Lyell, but also more recent ones. That’s why I give a point by point challenge to your answer.

I am contenting myself with the reasons you were giving.

Peter White

19.XII.2022

Fair enough. It is possible to make a reasoned argument against Lyell, or simply not be aware of his work.

The point of my answer was not to delve into the details of the fossil record, but to clarify the correct context of how Creationism fell out of favor. Many people seem to imagine that Darwin came out of nowhere and defeated Creationism in some kind of ideological conflict.

The truthe is very different. Darwin did not need to defeat Creationism. Creationism as a belief among those competent in geology was already in steady retreat long before Darwin stepped onto the Beagle.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

“but to clarify the correct context of how Creationism fell out of favor.”

In fact, the question involved how the fossil record supports or not creationism - not what it was thought to do in 1830.

Also your answer states:

“The basic problem with Creationism is it completely fails to explain”

An overreach on your part?

“Creationism as a belief among those competent in geology was already in steady retreat long before Darwin stepped onto the Beagle.”

How were Flood Geologists “not competent”?

Or how is their retreat, if you admit them competent an argument for now, rather than a curiosity from back then?

Peter White

19.XII.2022

A correct conclusion is overreach how? Perhaps I did not argue it sufficiently well in my post for your tastes.

I think you are picking nits now. The fossil record and the geological record are pieces of the same puzzle picture, especially since they did not yet have reliable dating methods in the early 19th century. Creationism failed to explain in the face of the known geological/fossil facts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

And how is it still failing?

How are dating methods reliable now (when it comes to fossils, not old bones of men that get carbon dates, inflated when far back, but in the right order, mostly)?

Remember, the original question and your original answer purported to be about what is logically valid as arguments about the fossil record now.

If we take Grand Canyon, I propose that different types of shellfish were streamed and sequentially buried during the Flood. Plus stacked up a bit when it comes to rise of mountains after the Flood.

If we take Lyell’s Paris basin, it’s not much different from GC.

If we take land biota, they don’t come in several layers at the same place.

Peter White

20.XII.2022

(1) Your idea about the Grand Canyon is not knew. It was believed, then reconsidered, and fell out of favor approximately 180 years ago. Lyell’s idea won the debate.

(2) Your idea about the shellfish does not really work. Layer 1 has Type A shellfish. Layer 2 has Type A + B shellfish. Layer 3 has Type B shellfish. Layer 4 has Type C shellfish. Why do we never ever see even one single Type A shellfish in layer 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9? They is no logical reason to expect such a strict sequential pattern. In fact, we would expect a tumultuous event to have some amount of mixing.

Answered twice

A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

(1) Winning the debate socially and winning the argument logically are not strictly speaking the same.

(2) Type A could come from a source that was exhausted by layer 2. Layer 2 from two sources mingled, the source B also into layer 3.

“In fact, we would expect a tumultuous event to have some amount of mixing.”

Have you studied the flume experiments by Guy Berthault?

Answered twice

i and ij

i

Peter White

20.XII.2022

“Type A could come from a source that was exhausted”

What would that source be? Why is there no logical place to look for this source that anyone can describe? Why is there no physical sign this source ever existed anywhere on the entire planet? Why are there zero examples of similar looking sources that have not been completely destroyed?

Why are the same results replicated with consistency across the whole globe? One might imagine one local “mountain of stuff A” getting spread around around , then a local “mountain of stuff B”, but this becomes impossible to believe at a global scale.

Worse still, how do you explain the existence of not one of these absurdly improbable distinct sources that simply disappeared, but thousands of them?

There are no explanations. The Creationists tried and tried and tried, and no explanation other than vague handwaving has ever been made. At the end of the day, the Creationist explanation boils down to “a magic wand did it”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

“What would that source be?”

A bank of shellfish of a specific type.

“Why is there no logical place to look for this source that anyone can describe?”

Because it was exhausted.

Flood water saturated with sediment was abrasing dune after dune, and rock after rock of the pre-Flood both sea and land.

“Why are there zero examples of similar looking sources that have not been completely destroyed?”

How would it look other than the parts being deposed?

“Why are the same results replicated with consistency across the whole globe?”

Are we dealing with “fauna of the same epoch”? Then it is because of classification.

Are we dealing with identic same fauna?

First of all, insofar as that is true, it is more about things like trilobites in the bottom, sharks in the midfield, whales and plesiosaurs high up.

Second, if it were about identic same shellfish, it could be that shellfish from identic same source was spread before that of the next one, across the world (remember - the Flood made the ocean temporarily global) or it could be something else, I haven’t actually heard of this.

“One might imagine one local “mountain of stuff A” getting spread around around , then a local “mountain of stuff B”, but this becomes impossible to believe at a global scale.”

Not with flood water streaming around the world.

Or what about certain types of shellfish having less cohesion and therefore getting abrased and spread more quickly?

Plus, again, is it same stuff or is it simply “classified as same period”?

“Worse still, how do you explain the existence of not one of these absurdly improbable distinct sources that simply disappeared, but thousands of them?”

It’s not improbable, as distinct colonies of shellfish exist today.

With most of the shellfish being non-identical, it would mostly be a repetition of a similar process of layering and a classification abusively pretending to time.

“The Creationists tried and tried and tried, and no explanation other than vague handwaving has ever been made.”

I don’t think a reference to Guy Berthault’s flume experiments is handwaving.

Now, how about YOU looking at my counter challenge, for land biota, and YOU not doing “just a vague handwaving”? [See under B]

ij

Peter White

20.XII.2022

Fundamentally, a Lyellian framework makes the world more and more understandable. The more one looks at the rocks and fossils, the more they make sense.

Creationism only makes less and less sense. Not only do you have to hypothesize these bizarre unique “sources” for specific fossils that were perfectly destroyed in a specific order, such a worldview does not really fit with anything described in Genesis. The more one looks at the fossils, yet more and more implausible sources must be handwaved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

There is nothing implausible in different colonies of shellfish becoming sources of different layers.

Take a thinker about what it means when streams of ocean width get saturated with sediment and start abrasing both rocks and previous sediment.

You handwaved my fine tuned criticism of your previous answer.

Me : “how much is literally the same and how much is just categorised same period across the world?”
You : “the more one looks at rocks and fossils, they more they make sense” …

Not an answer.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

(3) Counterchallenge. If millions and billions of years were true, in land biota, one would expect some layering corresponding to GC, there isn’t one.

Peter White

20.XII.2022

“GC”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

Grand Canyon.

Peter White

21.XII.2022

I am not certain what you are precisely asking, but there is abundant evidence of huge changes in the climate over the eons. A 28 inch dragonfly simply could not survive today on our planet — it would suffer for lack of oxygen and probably be unable to fly at all. The massive coal layer found in many parts of the globe, which we know is biological in origin because sometimes fossil imprints are preserved, cannot have been made in 40 days and 40 nights, and points to a very long period where most of the earth was very different from what we know today.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22.XII.2022

“A 28 inch dragonfly simply could not survive today on our planet”

Probably a different pre-Flood climate.

“cannot have been made in 40 days and 40 nights,”

Floating mats of entangled vegetation, piled on top of each other by the turmoil. The trees obviously grew in different places well into centuries before the Flood.

I should have said “land biota” as fauna; not flora.

Peter White

22.XII.2022

Turmoil? What turmoil? What we see in the strata is amazing ordered consistency in an apparent timeline. That contradicts your suggestion of turmoil.

That there was turmoil is just a story. You cannot point to any evidence whatsoever of turmoil in the Grand Canyon.

Furthermore, turmoil implies mixing.

When I see a layered cake with vanilla on the bottom and chocolate on the top, I say the surely the vanilla was poured first.

You are suggesting that both the vanilla and chocolate were poured in approximately the same time and stirred. Yet you cannot say why the vanilla always ends up on the bottom. Luck? Luck might work for one location…but it is still a very poor explanation even if we limit ourselves to the Grand Canyon. Consider how the strata are consistent across the globe and the turmoil idea becomes ridiculous.

You need turmoil because you need an island with dinosaurs to have been 100% completely obliterated with no trace whatsoever to be found. Then repeat this idea one thousand times. That is a lot of necessary turmoil.

Or we discard turmoil and recognize that Lyell got it right (for the most part). It is simpler. It is more elegant. It explains the observable data. And no necessity for claiming “turmoil” without evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22.XII.2022

First, you missed my most important input. When I said land biota, I meant land fauna, especially land vertebrate fauna.

We do NOT get several layers of these in any place. I’ll get back to that at the end.

Now, for the rest of your answer, to what you did comment on:

"That contradicts your suggestion of turmoil."

If we DID see "strata is amazing ordered consistency in an apparent timeline" which we do not.

"That there was turmoil is just a story."

Which is generally speaking more credible than reconstruction.

"When I see a layered cake with vanilla on the bottom and chocolate on the top, I say the surely the vanilla was poured first."

Yes, but that is not quite what we do see in fossils ... contrary to your allegation.

"You are suggesting that both the vanilla and chocolate were poured in approximately the same time and stirred."

Not with each other. You are interpreting "turmoil" as a scenario of a) everything suspended in turmoil and getting mixed, b) this mixture persisting when the calming down allows sedimentation to happen.

You have not seen the experiments by Guy Berthault (which were on the internet about ten years ago, but have become scarce, since).

Or you don't seem to have seen them. Two takeaways a) with water over-saturated you get sedimentation while the strong currents actually last, b) and sorting happens when particles of different size and density are suspended together. Wharves are very good images of what Berthault produced.

"Luck might work for one location…but it is still a very poor explanation even if we limit ourselves to the Grand Canyon."

Grand Canyon was not coal anyway.

"how the strata are consistent across the globe"

When it comes to a labelling that's put in place on the hypothesis there are "consistent strata" ...

"You need turmoil because you need an island with dinosaurs to have been 100% completely obliterated with no trace whatsoever to be found."

That is neither what I "need" nor what I actually said. I mentioned turmoil as explanation for one feature, namely thickness of coal layers. I could mention another feature, height of the layers in Grand Canyon.

And I never said the dinosaurs were 100 % obliterated by the Flood either.

"It explains the observable data."

NOT the ones related to vertebrate land fauna. As I just mentioned.

According to your theory, one would expect (in the case of a spot being land over the billions of years) to find dinosaurs under Uintatheria, pelykosaurs under dinosaurs. We don't. We very consistently don't. We very consistently do find herds of creatures buried in turmoil of incoming water and mud.

We also very consistently find one layer of fossils - not several on top of each other (with sea biota it's different, one can relate to sharks swimming above trilobites and below whales or plesiosaurs.

So, we don't find lowest a layer of Permian Moschops, above that a layer of Jurassic dinos, and above that fossil mammals. It's much more like one single giant flood found diverse biotopes and buries them in situ.

Interested in links to my research on the matter or you prefer being obtuse and repeating catchwords, like what you just produced?

Peter White

22.XII.2022

“So, we don't find lowest a layer of Permian Moschops, above that a layer of Jurassic dinos, and above that fossil mammals. It's much more like one single giant flood found diverse biotopes and buries them in situ.”

If it were one giant flood, then you would be able to point to examples of diverse animals mixed together that contradict the timeline interpretation. Such an example has never been found, in spite of the fact people have been looking for it for about 200 years.

Lacking such an example, it is logical to conclude you are wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22.XII.2022

Not if there were different habitats.

How often do you see frogs and wolfs in the same surroundings?

My turn now: if there were billions of years, somewhere levels of land and levels of sea would change, and in each case (all land, all sea, changing) more than one level of creature would be found.

Finding shellfish above land animals wouldn’t count, as shellfish are easily swept along Flood waters. I think there is one place for that in California la Baja (Mexican California).

Still no interest for the research I already did?

Q IV on Forum Catholic Apologetics

Can knowlede obtained through scientific study contradict truths revealed through the Lord's true prophets; and if there appears to be a cotradiction, should we not sincerely study both sides of the issue until we fully understand it?
https://catholicapologetics.quora.com/Can-knowlede-obtained-through-scientific-study-contradict-truths-revealed-through-the-Lords-true-prophets-and-if-there

Answer I

Tom Arachtingi

amateur apologist about 20 years ago

19.XII.2022

Can knowlede obtained through scientific study contradict truths revealed through the Lord's true prophets; and if there appears to be a cotradiction, should we not sincerely study both sides of the issue until we fully understand it?

The Catholic Church acknowledges that all Truth leads back to the author of Truth. And if you see a contradiction, then the problem is lack of knowledge, not lack of truth.

Thus, those who claim the world was created in 6 days are missing the point of the story(ies). The first creation story, a song, tells us that God created the world, and what He created was good. Cosmology tells us that the time involved was billions of years long. That doesn’t contradict the truth that God created the universe, and that what He created was good.

And to try to understand the world, because it reflects the glories of God the Church has supported scientists for centuries.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

“those who claim the world was created in 6 days are missing the point of the story(ies).”

Apart from a few (very few) preferring the world created in one single instant, that’s the whole array of Church Fathers and Scholastics you say are “missing the point” …

“The first creation story, a song,”

What is the exact metre of that song? You know, while Biblical songs originally in Hebrew are in fact a kind of prose in translation, they are perfectly metrical in Hebrew. The psalms for instance have a metre of two halflines per line, and each halfline has three accented words. Not two. Not four. Between the halflines, or between two consecutive lines, there is usually parallelism.

How exactly does such a scheme apply to the panorama account?

Because, Hebrew scholars actually say that in the early chapters of Genesis (1 - 11) only two small passages are in metre. Adam admiring his wife. Lamech boasting his capacity to take revenge. ALL the rest is in prose.

So, how exactly is this “a song” …?

“Cosmology tells us that the time involved was billions of years long.”

No, certain cosmologists will tell us that. They are speaking for “cosmology” which is not a magisterium which had any promise of infallibility and not a Church where no gates of Hell shall prevail.

“That doesn’t contradict the truth that God created the universe,”

Depends on what God you are speaking of …

“and that what He created was good.”

Yes, it actually does contradict this. It contradicts:

• no suffering or death in the physical world before Adam sinned
• no suffering for Adam himself before he sinned
• historicity of his fall into sin. AND the promise about Jesus and Mary.

Or in other versions, Adam even existing.

It adds up to a gigantic denial of God’s goodness, if you “read the small print” (I’ll happily respond if you are interested), and it adds up to a gigantic denial of His truthfulness.

More humdrum. It adds up to a denial of Abraham’s historicity, since if the atmosphere had been in place for millions of years, an equilibrium between decay and new production of carbon 14 would have already been reached and carbon dates would need to be taken as usually presented, which involves En-Geddi (Asason Tamar) being evacuated from Amorrheans 1565 years before Abraham was involved in Genesis 14 events, supposing any of it happened.

Biblical chronology for Genesis 14, Roman martyrology says Abraham was born 2015 BC, Abraham was c. 80 (between 76 and 86) and this makes the Biblical chronology for Genesis 14 c. 1935 BC. The carbon dates for the reed mats on which temple treasures ascribed to the Amorrhaeans were evacuated is 3500 BC. And next population inhabiting En-Geddi (which is an oasis, you cannot pretend the housing shifted a few kilometres outside) was in the Iron Age. Way after Abraham.

“the Church has supported scientists for centuries.”

She condemned one She had supported in 1633. BECAUSE his “science” contradicted Joshua 10.

Answered twice

C and D

C

Karen Thomas-McKearn

19.XII.2022

You kind of ramble. You need to get to your one point easier. All you talked about was deciding how old the earth is. Hasn’t science already proven it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

How could it?

It’s a question of past events, and that is history, not science.

D

Tom Arachtingi

20.XII.2022

“Apart from a few (very few) preferring the world created in one single instant, that’s the whole array of Church Fathers and Scholastics you say are “missing the point” …”

If the point isn’t that God created the universe and what He created was good, then what is the point?

“So, how exactly is this “a song” …?”

It is obvious it is a poem - stanzas with repeating format and a refrain. Then I heard a Jewish scholar on the radio say that it was a song, which fit right in with the obvious poetry. I don’t know Hebrew, so I’ll accept a scholar’s views, as they don’t contradict what I can plainly read.

The magisterium hasn’t stated anything about the depth of the ocean, the color of the sky, or the germ theory of disease. The fact that they haven’t said anything about the age that scientists put forth for the universe doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

“She condemned one She had supported in 1633. BECAUSE his “science” contradicted Joshua 10.”

Er - nope. The Church never condemned Copernicus. Galileo’s problems were political (probably wasn’t smart to put the pope’s words into a character called The Fool in his book), and disobedience (because he was ordered not to teach his hypothesis as a fact, because he didn’t have the data to support it).

And if you think that the heliocentric description of the solar system is invalidated by Joshua 10, then we have nothing else to talk about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

"If the point isn’t that God created the universe and what He created was good, then what is the point?"

All of it is to the point - not just this resumé.

"stanzas with repeating format and a refrain."

And what is the metre?

"Then I heard a Jewish scholar on the radio say that it was a song, which fit right in with the obvious poetry."

I think this is not very representative for the scholarship in Hebrew.

"I don’t know Hebrew, so I’ll accept a scholar’s views, as they don’t contradict what I can plainly read."

I don't know Hebrew either - but my mother studied it. I was allowed to attend lessons, and know that Hebrew poetry is structured as I explained.*

As long as I do not hear a Hebrew scholar explain how this has another metre of for instance four accented words per halfline, I'll stick with that.

"The magisterium hasn’t stated anything about the depth of the ocean, the color of the sky, or the germ theory of disease. The fact that they haven’t said anything about the age that scientists put forth for the universe doesn’t mean it isn’t true."

The depth of the ocean, the colour of the sky and the action of germs in certain diseases can be ascertained in the present, about present recurring conditions. Here we are dealing with a past that is not recurring.

"The Church never condemned Copernicus."

He never published in his life before his deathbed, he never went further than a hypothesis, he never drew attention to the conflict with Joshua 10 by trying to give a non-patristic exegesis of it.

"Galileo’s problems were political (probably wasn’t smart to put the pope’s words into a character called The Fool in his book),"

So, you are stating that the Pope Urban VIII was as corrupt about Galileo as Bergoglio about Frank Pavone?

"and disobedience (because he was ordered not to teach his hypothesis as a fact, because he didn’t have the data to support it)."

Disobedience can land you with many penalties, but not abjuring a thesis that is not found by the magisterium to be contrary to faith or morals.

"And if you think that the heliocentric description of the solar system is invalidated by Joshua 10, then we have nothing else to talk about."

More specifically verse 12. For that matter verse 13 too, considering the unanimous patristics for the obvious sense, but if we ignored that, we have verse 12. Joshua is not adressing the earth to stop rotating. He's adressing sun and moon to stop. If they are not what normally go and then stopped, this would be the only Biblical miracle in which the miracle worker was in error about what happened.

* If I were to be wrong, here are some others:

If Genesis were poetry what would it look like?
CMI Video | 29 Sept. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHMOsUwc56E

Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
Critique of the Framework Hypothesis
by Dr Don Batten, Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland
https://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history

Jewish Encyclopedia : METER IN THE BIBLE:
By: Joseph Jacobs, W. H. Cobb
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10738-meter-in-the-bible

Answer II

Erich Walrath

Catholic

19.XII.2022

The question revolves around the appearance of contradiction. Typically, when this occurs, it’s either a misunderstanding of either scripture or science. It helps to remember that science is primarily a methodology of discovery. Scientists are like cartographers, mapping time, space, and everything in between. But no scientist would ever claim to have the absolute truth. The categories contained within science can, on occasion, contradict each other. This is expected. It is the work of scientists to resolve those seeming contradictions, particularly at the theoretical level.

This does not apply to revealed truth. What, for example, is the scientific basis for the Noahide Law, or the Ten Commandments, or the Sermon on the Mount? One could argue that the resurrection of a dead man is impossible. But that’s not science. The best one could really say is that it’s highly improbable, and that, in fact, is the point. It is in the nature of miraculous events to be highly improbable. Perhaps, one day, we will understand the mechanism of Christ’s death and resurrection, but that would not detract from event nor contradict the underlying message.

Likewise, it’s a misreading of scripture to suggest that legends are literal; Creation for example, which, if one reads the Genesis account, is actually three distinct stories. Those that compiled the scriptures could read. They could see the disparities yet chose to include them.

That tells us that something else was afoot in the telling of the tales and we risk missing the message when arguing about a 6,000-year-old earth. Likewise, with the Babel story, or Noah’s flood. Scientific method does not apply. The point is the fallen state of humankind, and the necessity of divine law. These legends are startlingly significant insofar as everything in scripture flows from them. To the Christian, the fall of Adam and the resurrection of Christ are the bookends of belief.

But it is revealed Truth from a Source other than science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

“Likewise, it’s a misreading of scripture to suggest that legends are literal;”

Name a Church Father who said that …? Just one?

“Creation for example, which, if one reads the Genesis account, is actually three distinct stories.”

I’m used to hearing “two” - 1:1 to 2:4 and 2:5 to end of chapter 2.

“Those that compiled the scriptures could read.”

Moses certainly could read, yes. When did his favoured pronoun become “they”?

“They could see the disparities yet chose to include them.”

Disparities or change of perspective? I see first a big panorama, then a closeup on day VI. Account n. 2 being an extension in more detail of verses 26 - 29.

“That tells us that something else was afoot in the telling of the tales”

Deliciously imprecise …

“and we risk missing the message when arguing”

Because we suddenly have attention span zero?

“when arguing about a 6,000-year-old earth.”

7200 years according to the Roman martyrology - which via the Historia Scholastica does go back to SAINT Jerome actually ARGUING about it.

Erich Walrath

19.XII.2022

1. Genesis 1:1– Gen. 2:3.
2. Genesis 2:4 - Gen. 2:17
3. Genesis 2:18 - Gen. 2:35

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

Why would there be a different account instead of a continuation between verse 17 and 18?

Brandon J.C.

20.XII.2022

It's not a different account. It's a retelling of the same event just with added details. Genesis 1 is the outline. Genesis 2 is the detailed version.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

Well, yes, with two accounts or retellings, I’m on board. But you just stated three, with another limit between verses 17 and 18 of chapter 2.

Wait, sorry, you are not Erich Walrath - he did.

Answer III

Bernard Dick

Teacher, Visual Arts (Retired)

19.XII.2022

Yes. The Catholic Church maintains that there can be no real contradiction between science and revealed truth as God is the source of both. The Church has always promoted scientific investigation. There have been instances where that did not appear to be true but a close look, as in the Galileo affair, always reveals circumstances that make the individual situation complex. To over simply, Galileo maintained that the Bible was wrong. The Church taught that the Bible was correct in its basic truth as was science. Both were correct.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

The Galileo affair is actually straightforward.

Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right. As Robert Sungenis discovered c. 2 years after I did (2001 vs 2003) - but he’s more known.

Answer IV

Karen Thomas-McKearn

I use research to help answer your questions.

19.XII.2022

There doesn’t need to be contradictions. Science and the Bible can be compatible. Remember that the Bible is bright a science book, not a history book. It is the word of God. Too many people get hung up on this vs that! The Bible is a love letter to us from God. Of course it has many other things, but basically it tells us how much we a lived by God. It is right judgement. God lives all his children and wants them to come back home to Heaven when we die. Sometimes we have to be like little children and accept the beauty, love, mercy and grace that our Heavenly Father offers us. Repent from sun that separates us from God. Keep trying to be perfect, knowing only God is perfect, but when we fall down we get right back up again! Trust in God for he is the Truth! 🙏🙏🙏

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

“not a history book.”

A Catholic Bible has more than half of its chapters in what one can overall call historic books.

Unlike the Quran, the Bible actually is a history book. The history of salvation actually is “incarnated” into much more mundane history.

I suppose the spelling mistakes are due to answering from a phone, I highly recommend using a computer.

Karen Thomas-McKearn

19.XII.2022

I don’t own a computer, but thanks anyway. I also came down with the flu and don’t feel very well! My fingers don’t work very well at age 74. But thank you for your Christian care!

The Bible has never been claimed as a historical book! It does have a lot of history information in it, and it is the “history,” of our salvation, but it isn’t like your typical history book.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

The difference is, a history book is usually less well written and riddled with lots of useless scepticism.

And sorry for the suggestion being little use, perhaps your libraries and cybers aren’t as good as here in Paris.

Answer V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

19.XII.2022

First, in both the YEC and the Geocentric issue, I have done so, insofar as it is humanly possible.

Second, science was never promised “the gates of Hell shall not prevail” and some scientific “logic” or “method” these days is simply shady.

Third, the solution in each case is the Lord’s prophets being right. The solution is NOT in each case a scientist being also right. Especially not when a real contradiction is fairly hard to get around. Between the statements, that is.

Ian Senior

19.XII.2022

How about anthropology and the origin of mankind?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.XII.2022

What is anthropology supposed to show about it?

Ian Senior

20.XII.2022

Anthropology is science. The Church is infallible in faith and morals. There are proclamations that are classified as divine revelation, in the Church, relative to the origin of man, and descent from the original male- female pair of fully human members of mankind.

What I am asking is basically, does the Church have the right to make infallible assertions on anthropolagical science?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

When speaking of origins, as distinct from races or ethnology, anthropology is NOT a science.

The Bible as such is inerrant on every matter it touches on. And this was defined by Trent, Session IV, and did not include exceptions for science.

The “anthropological science” does not have any promise of infallibility, nor of Hell not getting better of it. It cannot be a magisterium rivalling the Church as She has been over centuries, nor the Bible.

Ian Senior

20.XII.2022

Do not confuse the term inerrant with infallible. Anthropological science is science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

Of the two, inerrant is the stronger.

Infallible means, it cannot fail in connexion with doctrines and morals as necessary for salvation.

Inerrant means, cannot fail in any single fact in the autograph of the hagiographer.

What exactly are the scientific credentials of anthropology? That it’s taught at universities? So was at times Parapsychology in the Soviets and and so were Evangelical views of Late Antiquity’s Church History.

But frankly, I didn’t say anthropology had NOTHING scientific to say, I said it is not a scientific account of ORIGINS. The two concepts are distinct. Denisovans and Neanderthals certainly existed.

But pretending they and we come from sth like Homo erectus soloensis is dependent on even less credible assumptions.

If you ask me, our race (Cro Magnon) came to coexist with Neanderthals, Denisovans and Erecti soloenses before the Flood, possibly all and very probably the last of which represent either Nephelim or some transhumanist genetic experiments, leaving them somewhat stunted.

Ian Senior

20.XII.2022

Your definition “Inerrant means, cannot fail in any single fact in the autograph of the hagiographe “, places the term in a very arkward position as far as scriptual texts are concerned. Time periods differ , one text to another .Generations from Abraham, even inthe first and second also differ, from Ketura, accounts of man’s creation differ, etc etc.

The Bible , in my view is truly inerrant, as far as the Church interprets it for our salvation. That does not ascribe to your definition though. Pope Francis recently gave a treatise leading the faithful to beleive, that the idea of God being one who just brings about a new form without a due process (such as evolution), is erroneous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.XII.2022

“Time periods differ , one text to another”

Yes, one of them is obviously not the autograph.

“Generations from Abraham”

Don’t you mean Noah to Abraham? As I go by the Roman martyrology, I am obviously aware it is different from a text common to Vulgate and Masoretic. It is “LXX without the Second Cainan” - which is in turn a minority reading of LXX manuscripts and agreeing with the Samaritan Pentateuch.

“even inthe first and second also differ, from Ketura”

What chapter? Anyway, if true, I didn’t know it, the solution is the same - one of the versions differs from the autograph.

“The Bible , in my view is truly inerrant, as far as the Church interprets it for our salvation.”

That’s not what Trent Session IV says. Nor how St. Thomas felt about it. The interpretation for our salvation, or pastoral plus major salvation related dogmas and correct morals are far from exhausting inerrancy. Even where the choice which was the original text is inaccessible and the original meaning of the text is not sufficiently clear by Church Fathers agreeing, the autograph was still inerrant on any matter of fact the hagiographer spoke on therein.

What you are talking about is infallible - the Church over the centuries (and where the real hierarchy is now) does not cheat us out of necessary or even highly useful truth and even less of our salvation. Fallere is the Latin for deceive.

“Pope Francis recently gave a treatise leading the faithful to beleive, that the idea of God being one who just brings about a new form without a due process (such as evolution), is erroneous.”

To me that is one major clue Bergoglio is not Pope. Non-Catholics are not Popes.

God in Cana turned water to wine instantaneously, not over weeks or months of intermediate stages.

Satan was perfectly right that Jesus, as God, COULD have turned stones into bread instantaneously.

Ian Senior

21.XII.2022

First and foremost Pope Francis IS pope, Bergoglio that is.

Secondly, only what happened, happened. This serves for doctrinal purposes.

Third… St Thomas and St Augustine are great theologians, but not the Magisterium(s), of the Church. I am sure you agree that marital relations are holy rather than (venially) sinful when its purpose is procreation, or even open to procreation. How about early abortion? Certainly it is evil, even if the foetus does not have a human soul.

Fourth….. God can do anything that is ‘do- able’. Its up to him to do it in his most expedient way. The method at the wedding feast, possibly amounts for a few billionths of the wine ever produced. Lets not expect miraculous occourences to be everyday ones; other than the procreative ones ,plant and animal.

On a closing note, i was referring, just as I said, to Abraham’s descendents through Ketura. Descent from other people such as Noah and even Adam ,dont always square off, text for text. But that does not make the Bible, for what it is meant to be, errant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21.XII.2022

First, though not foremost, you are wrong.

Second, I am not clear what you refer to - what happened in the previous century and this one, like election and death of Pope Michael, or what happened before Moses. Yes, only exactly one thing happened as opposed to conflicting scenarios both being true, but the correct scenario is there in the original autograph of the hagiographer, whatever versions later on may have a slightly off version. And it is also there in the Bible, even if “science” (a modern idol, to be distinguished from the sciences) says otherwise.

Third:

“I am sure you agree that marital relations are holy rather than (venially) sinful when its purpose is procreation, or even open to procreation.”

It might seem that you refer to St. Augustine only, not St. Thomas here. Nevertheless an irregularity attaches to them - the night before communion, or before a priests celebrates Holy Mass, abstinence is normally required. Recent dispensations may obviously apply.

Anyway, the Council of Trent IS the magisterium and you do not find a single Church Father (did I mention it was session IV?) who is not saying (if saying anything all on the matter) that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are the amount of time between THE beginning and the times of Abraham that involve early pharaonic (possibly pre-dynastic) Egypt and chalcolithic En Gedi. Depending on versions, this is between 1599 and 3432 years to Abraham’s birth and 75 to 76 years to his visit in Egypt, between 76 and 86 years to Genesis 14. NOT millions or billions of years.

Fourth: “Lets not expect miraculous occourences to be everyday ones”

I’d correct this to everyday and down to earth. I do believe every day is a miracle of God turning the universe around us, that this was the proof of God in Damaescene and in Prima Via, and the one St. Paul most probably had in mind in Romans 1.

Putting nature in place is however NOT even when it’s down to earth, everyday. Hence no reason to imply creation took long time.

The closing note or fifth, the Bible is indeed not errant, as only one of the versions also about Ketura is that of the hagiographer’s autograph.

Ian Senior

21.XII.2022

No . You ARE wrong. If you are Catholic Pope Francis is, was duly elected, and duly installed as temporal vicar of Christ upon earth. He is who we refer to as ‘Pope’.

As you like to take chunks of others statements and erroneously comment upon them, rather than upon the whole which contains its true meaning, know a simple fact that has totally eluded you ,and your false reasoning….. God does what He does in His time. Remember ,He is eternal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21.XII.2022

If Bergoglio is Pope, the Church is dead, already over this issue.

While God is eternal, we are not. While thousand years are like a day to God, they are not so to procreating patriarchs.

And if I comment on snippets, it’s to cut down the argument for you at every point it lends itself to it, which is plenty.

AND - if the last pope died on August 2nd this year, the Church stands a chance. Like Christ kept that promise.

Ian Senior

22.XII.2022

The Church upon earth is very much alive, and yes, with Pope Francis at its helmn.

If anyone, at present ,ascribes to a Holy Communion mandatory abstinence from marital sex for 3 days, or even a night, before reception of the sacred species, they are living, either in a time zone 5 centuries ago, or Mars.

The Church upon earth is alive in the now. We have no information about the church in Mars.

P.S. Treasure the privaledge of present access to daily Holy Communion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22.XII.2022

Frank Pavone is one reason more to doubt your assessment of where the Church is.

If anyone etc … or they are Eastern Rite or other married clergy.

The Church on earth is alive over the centuries from Ascension to Second Coming, including now, but not exclusive to now.

The Church on Mars would be one angel moving it in an epicycle around the Sun.

Ian Senior

22.XII.2022

I do not know enough about the Fr Pavone affair to comment. I do not trust what comes from the media, but I know that the group in question is not a Church group.

I do not see how rite fits the equation! All 7 rites are represented in the 24 churches of the Catholic Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22.XII.2022

I think Eastern Rite are also more strict on fasting issues.

Perhaps I got it wrong and confused Byzantine Church with Byzantine Rite, and Byzantine Rite in Latin Rite regions go by local rules. Or perhaps I didn’t, and they go by those of the Byzantine Church.

Anyway, I would suspect that they, like Orthodox priests, abstain the night before celebrating and leave celebration on some other days to monk priests. I could be wrong.

While the procreative act is righteous, in marriage, under due circumstances, it is also tainted because that is how Original Sin is transmitted.

And a boy of five blasphemed and was killed instantly, and Pope [St] Gregory found the mother had been using the marriage a night before going to Church.

But frankly (pun on Pavone intended) the magic wand speech in 2014 is clearly way more damning for Bergoglio being Pope than even lifting sanctions on Ruplik while heaping them on Pavone (a comparison made by Return to Tradition). The creation week was not your everyday occurrence, and you could expect miracles in it.

And Jesus also said “from the beginning of creation” which is very odd in the light of Big Bang chronology but very understandable in Biblical chronology. Mark 10:6. And before you say this means from the beginning of specifically human creation, referencing Mark 16:15, we Catholics believe in blessing pet animals and cars, so we do not take this word as a token only human creation is meant.

Ian Senior

23.XII.2022

It would be good for anyone to listen to the priest witnessing ,a Catholic marriage claim that matrimony is the one institution not affected by original sin, before claiming an Augustinian construct ,that Original sin is transmitted by ‘generation’. I wonder why ‘test tube’ babies have Original sin as well !

‘From the beginning of creation’ ,male and female etc. Anyone who knows Genesis scripture, would realize that male and female members of mankind were created a few ‘days’ into creation. This ‘beginning’ may indeed be a few billion years! So lets allow the Church to place your quote into its proper context. Science can also be of assistance.

Most of all, know that marital relations open to procreation are God given and blessed, not sinful. And whilst you conjure ‘tainted’ , most charitable pursuits are transacted in a medium of money, as the Lord himself said, ‘that tainted thing’ . Fortunately, no one has to stop being charitable. And know for certain that a marriage is only complete when consumated sexually; yes, even sacramental marriages.

If you do not beleive what I am saying, ask a bishop.

So long for now,regards.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23.XII.2022

“I wonder why ‘test tube’ babies have Original sin as well !”

They are also generated, albeit in less than usual naturality.

“This ‘beginning’ may indeed be a few billion years!”

Not according to the Church over the centuries. Not according to Pope Michael up to when he died in August.

“Science can also be of assistance.”

ScienceS sometimes assist, but not all equally and the dating methods are among the more tainted things. Not just with un-Biblicalism, but with bad science. As in bad logic.

I have no doubt that marital relations open to procreation are God-given and blessed. So is human nature. Yet - human nature is tainted by original sin.

“And know for certain that a marriage is only complete when consumated sexually;”

Apart from white marriages - not that I am planning that - but yes, normally a marriage is binding when it is “ratum et consummatum” - between a wedding and a wedding night a marriage could be dissolved by one contrahend going into a monastery, not that I plan that.

“an Augustinian construct”

Trent Session V, canon 3:

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

Presuming you have some orthodoxy left and misspoke, blessed Christmas.

Ian Senior

23.XII.2022

Merry, happy and holy Christmas.

Let me inform you that Original sin WILL be in all members of mankind whether or not they have been generated in a test tube, ilicit sex, or holy matrimonial sex. Holy matrimonial sex is NOT sinful.

The Church has clearly ruled out immitation as the way of Original Sin’s transferrence, but is not specific as to ‘generation’ in meaning and form. Indeed, I will never accept that a married couple has to spread sin to consumate a sacrament. You should know well that God does not lead people into temptation, or sin for that matter.

As I told you before 1. Stop taking segments of a treatise and commenting upon them erroneously, to errroneously illustrate your misunderstanding. 2. Do not quote Popes and other Church documents out of context to further deepen your misunderstanding. This is not a law court or a lawer’s office.

My orthordoxy is sufficient. My Catholicity even more so. Is yours? A parrot can quote anything, but a human mind is needed for spiritual understanding and will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23.XII.2022

“Original sin WILL be in all members of mankind whether or not they have been generated in a test tube, ilicit sex, or holy matrimonial sex.”

Meaning, the gametes carry it or the male gamete carries it to the forming of the zygote.

“Holy matrimonial sex is NOT sinful.”

No, but it involves releasing gametes into a life starting with original sin from the zygote stage.

So obviously do non-natural methods, whether medically or demonically assisted.

I’ll give you a comparison. Your family is dying from starvation, the only way to get food to save you is to break up a shopwindow and start shoplifting. The act is tainted by this stealing, nevertheless justified.

It is tainted if you cook a decent meal and say grace before eating as you should, and it’s also tainted if you do something totally ridiculous, like decide to not to look to each other.

Tainted does not mean sinful, since the just act cannot avoid this taint - applies to both stories.

“but is not specific as to ‘generation’ in meaning and form.”

I think it is obvious from the Church Fathers.

“I will never accept that a married couple has to spread sin to consumate a sacrament.”

Sorry, but this seems to be somewhat off. They spread life, but they do so with tainted means, namely gametes getting original sin from them. So, while they spread life, they accidentally also spread original sin.

"Stop taking segments of a treatise and commenting upon them erroneously, to errroneously illustrate your misunderstanding."

Treatises usually involve segments, and if the segments are wrong, as I am showing, so is the treatise.

"Do not quote Popes and other Church documents out of context to further deepen your misunderstanding."

Do you believe you are God? Do you believe I am a five year old child you can give daddy talk?

Even if you were a bishop, even if you were a perfectly orthodox pope, that would not be a way to talk to me.

What you are NOT showing yourself is a capacity to back up treatises segment by segment when attacked or showing where my "quoting" is "out of context" or what "misunderstanding" it either deepens or shows or whatever.

"My orthordoxy is sufficient."

Not to me. You are for instance Evolutionist, contrary to all of the Church Fathers. You are an idolater of Science (hypostatised superknowledge, as distinguished from sciences that are fallible but fairly good repositories for actual knowledge), as you show by saying Anthropology is not just "a science" (debatably half correct in some aspects of it), but that it is so in relation to "human origins" which is a historic and not a scientific question, and prior to the existence of human observers transmitting observations (i e prior to Adam being there) a question of prophecy.

"My Catholicity even more so."

Not to me. Neither are others of the club who get around Church Father consensus by saying "the Church has not decided" - if a thing is in all the Church Fathers the Church actually has decided in Trent Session IV.

Q V (submitted to Catholic Apologetics)

How did the Great Flood affect different cultures?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Great-Flood-affect-different-cultures/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

20.XII.2022

The cultures you think of are usually post-Flood.

First, most of them don’t have a good written documentation reaching even comparatively far back. Some of them did have writing, like Egyptians, but what’s left of history is very fragmentary.

Second, this means that their early states are dated by carbon 14.

Third, this means that if carbon 14 was rising after the Flood, it was way lower near the Flood.

My carbon date for the Flood, for 2957 BC, is not carbon dated 3000 BC or 5000 years ago. It’s 39 000 years ago.

So, all the times of those cultures you would be thinking of as in conflict with the Biblical date of the Flood are in fact post-Flood times that are misdated due to carbon 14 levels still rising.