Apologetics, Comments on Erik Manning / Testify, Two Videos

Sheik Uthman's SILLY "Bible Contradiction"
Testify | 14 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6F5RCFsqE4

0:53 Two possible solutions.

1) LXX and Vulgate and Douay Rheims are right : forty thousand in 3 Kings 4:26 too;
2) different types of stalls (chariot only vs chariot + horses).

Yungy Karma

3 Kings?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yungy Karma In Hebrew, There was a man of Ramathaimsophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elcana, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliu, the son of Thohu, the son of Suph, an Ephraimite: to And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered holocausts and peace offerings: and the Lord became merciful to the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel. is the (single) Book of Samuel, and Now king David was old, and advanced in years: and when he was covered with clothes, he was not warm. to And he appointed him a continual allowance, which was also given him by the king day by day, all the days of his life. is the (single) Book of Kings.

In the LXX, the two works are instead four, and called I to IV Kings, same as in the Vulgate.

Only the Protestants kept the division, but reintroduced Samuel as a book name, and made I and II Kings I and II Samuel, III and IV Kings I and II Kings.

2:06 What happened was not that books that had never been canonic were suddenly canonised.

What happened was that books that had recently been disputed by some learned men were reaffirmed as canonised on the level of an Ecumenic Council, like local councils had canonised them in Rome and Carthage at the same time as we find the first complete canon of the NT.

2:26 Backseat ... does it when discussing with Jews?

Some Jews will pretend the NT is misciting the Tanakh, what really happened was usually that the NT hagiographer cited the LXX translation - the one where we consistently do find the "extra" books.

The Masoretic version, often called "the original Hebrew" is actually a 1000 years younger than the LXX.

I wouldn't trust it on all issues, like it omits material from Jeremiah (33:14 to end includes a promise of the Church of Christ : 1) having sacrifices in the Eucharist, 2) remaining to the end of times).

But I will also not trust an omission that first favours Judaism (Baruch 3 says (the wisdom of) God Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.) and then Protestant errors (II Maccabees 12 says It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.)

Here we might recall, the Vulgate has a complete Jeremiah and also Baruch and II Maccabees.

Testify

I wasn't referring to Jews obviously.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Testify You were forgetting them.

I can't afford it.

Resuming the video later:

1:28 While Franzelin and Vigouroux only hold to real inspiration and verbal providential protection, Vigouroux admits that most generations of Christians when speaking on the matter at least spoke as if holding to verbal inspiration.

St. Thomas Aquinas actually says "Spiritu Sancto dictante" when on the one hand referring to the six creation days, and on the other hand refusing to take firmly one of the sides in "six literal days" vs "one moment" versions of Creation.

The Latin means "with the Holy Ghost giving dictation" ...

1:47 The number of books can be settled by two close localities which are at a certain distance on the road.

The Catholic numbering is "72, or of Baruch is counted as a separate book from Jeremias, 73" meaning the number of books is somewhat fluid 72 / 73 for whole Bible and 45 / 46 for the OT.

The distance between Thessalonica and Beroea is 73 km or 45 miles. Miles being an older measure of voyage length than km.

2:08 Thank you for speaking of "canonised during the time of the Reformation" but the Council of Trent was actually reaffirming the Bible canons of Pope St. Damasus I, synod of Rome, and the subsequent synod of Carthage. These being also the first two occasions we meet a complete and exclusive NT canon.

It was more like Luther decanonised 7 books and 7 book parts, by decontextualising Romans 3:2 as referring (incorrectly) to what St. John calls Jews in his Gospel, i e the Christ-rejectors.

It referred on the contrary to the nation which when St. Paul was young and before Jesus died on the Cross practised the as yet correct Second Temple Judaism. Which included people who accepted the disputed Bible parts. Probably St. Timothy, who was a Greek speaking Jew, did. Probably in Acts 6:1 you have a mention of peoples accepting that Daniel 3 includes:

25 Then Azarias standing up prayed in this manner, and opening his mouth in the midst of the fire, he said:
26 Blessed art thou, O Lord, the God of our fathers, and thy name is worthy of praise, and glorious for ever: 27 For thou art just in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are true, and thy ways right, and all thy judgments true.
... 89 O give thanks to the Lord, because he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever and ever. 90 O all ye religious, bless the Lord the God of gods: praise him and give him thanks, because his mercy endureth for ever and ever.

If you accepted the Jewish OT canon, why are "Samuel and Kings" four books, like in the LXX, instead of two?

Are You a Christian With Doubts? Stop Doing This.
Testify | 23 Sept. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDvEYlwo_F0

Thanks for reminding me, I have to check of HolyKoolaid made a part 2 on Tower of Babel, or if he's still shook up after my answers to his "part 1" ...

0:35 Just in case you thought of me, check out what I am saying to Mr. Henke.

What Henke Responded - up to "Henke2022aa" (with ab and ai looked up in advance, since referred to in previous)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/09/what-henke-responded-up-to-henke2022aa.html

It's perhaps not your style of apologetics, but if you consider me a doubter, that's pretty absurd by now.

2:03 "To some of which no satisfactory answer can be given" - like?

If you happen to have a case in point, hand it over, I'll see what I can do!

We’re all in the truthseeking gang

@WAIT_TG

Here is one: Why does Satan do evil if it brings about greater good?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@We’re all in the truthseeking gang The question can be taken two ways.

1) why is Satan doing it, if it's not going to further his purpose?
2) why is it evil, when not doing so?

To the first, he is bringing down some souls, so it is furthering as much of his purpose as he can get.
To the second, his purpose remains an evil one, even if it is one not fully realised, but rather overturned, by the mercy of God.

We’re all in the truthseeking gang

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I’ll take 1):
To that reply I will ask:

Does God deem it ultimately good that Satan brings down some souls?

If yes: Satan is working for God, not against God
If no: because God desires good, and God knows all things, and God can do all things, why doesn’t God prevent it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@We’re all in the truthseeking gang

God allows some evil, because He can make a greater good out of it.

If my mother hadn't been raped, she might have cared less for my father when meeting him. Is rape serving God just because God wanted me to be made?

Rape is still rape, sin is still sin, evil is still evil - and God brings good out of it, but ows no thanks to those doing evil.

4:02 "over the past few centuries"

Like, why not over the past 2000 years? I mean, is it because that could bring someone to Catholicism?

Between Albigensians and St. Thomas Aquinas, I know whom I want on my side in an Apologetics quest (but then again, I converted to Catholicism in 1988, basically for this reason).

Logician_Bones

Most likely to stay up-to-date on discoveries.

Just another Baptist Jew

Honestly, Athanasius was incredibly helpful in my discussions with Jehovah Witnesses

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Just another Baptist Jew For instance.

Yes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones Most objections aren't really all that new or all that related to discoveries.

For those that are - well, I'd say the discoveries since 1950 are pretty relevant for Young Earth Creationist Apologetics.

I'm not neglecting CMI or AiG, though I sometimes disagree with them.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Mere percentage of objections with no regard for how relevant they are or impactful isn't enough though. I don't know even know how you would begin to quantify that percent, but I do know it comes up a lot on VERY important subjects. Especially in social sciences re: the findings of JP Holding. I didn't really even have CMI/AiG in mind in that statement much, but yes, those too. Also a lot about direct Christianity evidence has been refined well, like that of Strobel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones "Especially in social sciences"

Those aren't legitmately sciences.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones "Mere percentage of objections with no regard for how relevant they are or impactful"

I meant most of those that are around and impactful and seen as relavant now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones As you mentioned Mr. Holding, we have our differences.

He mistakes I Cor 7:1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ... for a Malthusian statement, based on the hypothesis that "the present concern" was:

• a starvation prophecied and mentioned in Acts (but not in Corinthians)
• in support of which he presents a monument praising a dole distributor as giving disaster relief.

He further pretends contraception is OK.

He further pretends that earlier lower marriageable ages as well as "prejudice" against contraception were due to people mostly dying around 35.

Apart from high infant mortality, they were more usually getting past 60, and not seldom past 70, somewhat less often past 80 - if they survived to 20. I'm speaking of the Middle Ages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If I didn't like his work at all (I've only seen youtubes, not read his books), I wouldn't have known him enough to get into these conflicts with him.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Social science follows the scientific method and makes reliable predictions; it's a science. It consistently "resolves" alleged contradictions and such. As for the rest, I didn't say he's perfect; the findings are the point, not him (and I haven't seen him saying any of those things, and I've read pretty much his whole website, watched all his vids, and watched his comments on those vids for years -- for whatever it's worth).

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The point about infant mortality has been discussed on his channel in comments before. I don't recall exactly what he said but it was obvious "you're dying at 35" is just a summary of the average. The point is they needed more time (or at least perceived themselves as needing and God accommodated it perhaps in a way like Matthew 19:8) to make up for the high death rates; real life didn't operate "other than this group" -- all groups' deaths counted and had to be countered.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Further details: Claim: JP Holding "pretends contraception is OK" (presumably meaning abortion types). I found only one article on his website from a search that even has the word in it, and it's in reply to someone who argues we're supposed to just have as many babies as possible carelessly, and I just read the whole thing and nowhere does he endorse abortive contraception.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl He does point out that the fruitfulness mandate doesn't oppose "contraception," but it seems he has in mind non-abortive means, and he doesn't actually endorse it either way. In fact near the end of the article, the people under review are cited saying that even abstinence is within their definition of contraception that they're arguing against (or at least "birth control" -- the exact words used in that section)!

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If you mean that he thinks NON-abortive methods of contraception are inherently wrong, that's a different argument, but you would need to support it, not merely baldly assert it. It's obvious that at least one method mentioned in that article isn't wrong. So this wouldn't be "pretending."

Logician_Bones

Claim: "pretends that earlier lower marriageable ages [...] were due to people mostly dying around 35. Apart from high infant mortality, they were more usually getting past 60". This same article actually had a brief paragraph that shows Holding is NOT unaware of the influence of infant mortality on this number:

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl |In the OT world, infant and child mortality was exceptionally high. In addition, the average human lifespan was around 35 years. In contrast, infant and child mortality in the modern West is extremely low, with such persons living well into their 80s and 90s.|

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Also I was pretty sure he had material about another passage that describes a long lifespan and was claimed to be a contradiction, and a quick search of "lifespan" shows it as included in the first result (which is the Psalms hub page, linking to another), although I got backwards in memory what it was said to contradict (the much longer pre-Moses lifespans):

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl |Psalms 90:10 This says our lifespan is 70; what of all the people who lived to be 400, 900, etc? The skeptic who calls up this one needs to note that Ps. 90:10 is a written well after all of these people and describes current conditions at the time of the Psalmist; b) as proverbial literature is hardly stating an absolute and universal number in the first place.|

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl This wording allows that an average lifespan of those who do survive birth and early childhood can be quite long compared to 35.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Your claim also isn't clear if you understand there were other factors, like that other nations would or at least could have been having kids as early as possible to have as many potential soldiers as possible for wars against Israel and others, and in pre-modern-tech ages number of soldiers was a more relevant factor for winning a war, so they had good reason to match this as best they could, for national self-defense, regardless of lifespan.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Both factors have gone away in more recent times, so a higher priority today is to wait until people are mentally mature enough, so it's good for the minimum age to be much higher.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl We'd have to search everything Holding and his recommended sources say to see precisely how much of that he's explicitly said or likely endorsed, but pretty sure I remember most of those points from there.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Claim: You also added this bit in that same phrasing: "'prejudice' against contraception were due to people mostly dying around 35." Not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps something from a video that isn't turning up in a text search? I don't see that wording in the only article with the word "contraception" in it, at least.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl My impression is more that his view is they had legitimate reasons (ancients did) for higher birth rates, not that these made them "prejudiced" against (non-abortive) contraception, though that could certainly have happened too. But he's said IIRC that ancients tended to be MORE understanding of how a heirarchy of morals applies legitimate exceptions and if the modern situation were explained to them it seems more likely they would be open to lower modern birth rates.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl But are you sure that's how this word "prejudice" was being used? As far as I can recall, he almost always uses it of moderns, not of ancients, though I'm sure with some exceptions. For whatever it's worth a text search shows only 7 hits, none of them fitting this wording.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Claim: Holding's view of the "present crisis" in 1 Corinthians 7 is a "mistake" and a "Malthusian statement." It's unclear if you think the hypothesis of a famine is a mistake or if you realize Holding is saying that "good for a man not to touch a woman" is likely a Corinthian view that Paul partially repudiates. 1b is likely a quote, although Paul's response in 2 doesn't necessarily negate it, but Holding says:

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl |It is recognized that 7:1 is Paul quoting back a Corinthian viewpoint. Apparently due to the famine, some perceived that it would be good to abstain for sexual intercourse, and Paul responds to this by noting that married persons did have this obligation to one another.|

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl On the famine he says:

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl |It will surprise such speculators to be told that the words "present distress" do not indicate any sort of eshcatological event, but rather a food shortage in Corinth. Winter shows that there were severe grain shortages in the 40s and 50s AD (cf. the shortage predicted in Acts) which in turn produced social distress (riots, crime). Paul speaks of the distress as present, not as impending or future. This is not an eschatological warning.|

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl That it was seen as a famine I did recall (and noted just last week in reviewing another book that doesn't consider it), but I don't recall anything Malthusian about it.

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I think you would need to add more clarifications and justifications to make anything of this. It certainly makes sense during a famine to abstain from bringing more mouths to feed into the world temporarily; this is hardly Malthusian (which specifically says population tends to outgrow food supply, which is actually the opposite of Holding's view of ancients, and the advice Paul evidently quotes here would actually prevent Malthus's paranoia from being justified).

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Paul does advise remaining single in response to it, but only due to that kind of local and temporary problem. Holding recognizes this and says:

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl |Far from advising against marriage for all time, or because of the end of the world as some say, Paul is speaking on an entirely different topic.|

Logician_Bones

@Hans-Georg Lundahl As for Holding's view of Malthus's claims, I couldn't find any result on his website by that name or Malthusian. I think again you need to provide more backup.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones "It's obvious that at least one method mentioned in that article isn't wrong."

Which one?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones Two questions:
1) did you post the link in a separate comment, I don't see it;
2) which year is it from? Could be from after our quarrel, when he looked at the evidence without being disturbed by what he felt as my grating presence?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones Is this a quote from his article?

"|In the OT world, infant and child mortality was exceptionally high."

How does he pretend to know this? There are two instances of infant mortality mentioned in the OT, Solomon's older brother and the case he resolved around the two women's one surviving child.

"In addition, the average human lifespan was around 35 years."

By saying "in addition" it does not seem clear that he means the 35 years are taking infant mortality into account and that a considerably higher age was attainable if you looked away from infant mortality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones I wonder if he looked up Psalms 90:10 after our dispute.

Anyway, he had attacked the Quiverfull movement, and my latest addition to this dispute was from 2016, June.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones "It's unclear if you think the hypothesis of a famine is a mistake or if you realize Holding is saying that "good for a man not to touch a woman" is likely a Corinthian view that Paul partially repudiates."

It is good for a man not to touch a woman is by St. Paul said universally for all ages of the Church : celibacy is the preferred state.

It has nothing to do with a starvation, Corinth was not likely to be touched by a starvation (yes there was one) and the official subsidies giver who had a monument was definitely there as such with or without starvation, since that was Caesarian policy (known as Annona) dealing with the poor.

So, the meaning is : celibacy is the preferred state. Unless - see the following - one is not chaste as a celibate. In that case, marriage is definitely preferrable. "It is better to marry than to burn" (by desires not sufficiently mastered).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Logician_Bones "It will surprise such speculators to be told that the words "present distress" do not indicate any sort of eshcatological event,"

What is the Greek for "distress" here?

Nestle Aland for "present concerns" has :
Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, ...
But about the things that you wrote ...

It has some alternative reading usually translated "present concerns" because it was present to Paul by the letter and a concern as an ongoing debate in Corinth.

Winter (as cited by Holding) is trying to make sociology at a distance of over 19 centuries, and that's sociological pseudo-science at its worst.