Which Went On ... and Was Censored?

I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him · A Comment of Mine Sparked a Debate · Which Went On ... and Was Censored? · Continuing · Carolina Jackson Continued · Antecedent Will, Clarity of St. Paul, Access to Apostolic Tradition

Carolina Jackson

@carolinajackson7621

@EmberBright2077 Abraham shows up in Genesis 12. Do u believe that Abraham existed? If so, in what chapter of Genesis do u trace the line, & what right do u have to do so?

We are not the first generation of people to face the challenge of competing truth claims. In fact, Adam and Eve faced such a dilemma at the very beginning. God had clearly said to them “You shall surely die” if they were to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). On the other hand, the Serpent said the opposite to them: “You will not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). How should Adam and Eve have adjudicated these competing claims? By empiricism? BBy rationalism? By what seemed right to them? No, there was only one standard to which they should have appealed to make this decision: the word that God had spoken to them. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Instead of looking to God’s revelation, Eve decided to investigate things further herself: “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes . . . she took of its fruit and ate” (3:6). Make no mistake, the fall was not just a matter of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. At its core, the fall was about God’s people rejecting God’s Word as the ultimate standard for all of life.

U have to decide if you want to believe God's Word or man's Word.

Also, I see that not all Catholics have a monolithic body of beliefs.

EmberBright

@EmberBright2077

@carolinajackson7621 I don't need to have any pin-point idea of when Abraham was around, or how many generations were before him. It doesn't change the truth of the faith.

\\ We are not the first generation of people to face the challenge of competing truth claims. \\

Correct. However, our situation is more that we know the Earth is old and evolution is true. Your only options are 1) completely deny science to preserve your faith. 2) reject Christianity as obviously false. 3) realize that we don't have to interpret Genesis as a scientific text. Genesis is a written version of a long oral tradition from incredibly ancient times, and we do not need to assume it is communicating irrelevant scientific ideas to a people who wouldn't understand anyway.

Or, if you like, 4) present some kind of evidence that completely overturns everything we've learned in the last few hundred years.

Your example of the Serpent is deceptive. Anyone can put forward their interpretation of Scripture, and when someone disagrees, compare them to the Serpent. Not to mention we are in a completely different situation to Adam and Eve here, as I've explained. This is apples and oranges.

\\ U have to decide if you want to believe God's Word or man's Word. \\

This is a false and deceptive binary. I am saying they are not at odds. It is your word (man's word) telling you that they are at odds.

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 " let God be true, but every man a liar;" (romans 3, 4).

I is not MY word, it is God's Word, what u are choosing to downplay bc u follow an institution that tells u to do so. How sad.

EmberBright

@carolinajackson7621 I've never called God a liar. I simply don't force Genesis to be a scientific text when it probably isn't.

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 believing God's Word from the beginning is not forcing anything.

When I have a chance, I will explain u the many scientific flaws of evolution.

If u think u have the right not to take God at His Word from the 1st chapter, u r saying that what is there is not literary true, & thus calling God a lier.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@EmberBright2077 Genesis is pretty certainly not a scientific text, it's a historic one.

History is the go-to for facts of the past.

How long was Abraham ago?

According to Roman Martyrology, Christmas Day, he was born 2015 BC.

According to Syncellus, 2188 BC.

According to Ussher, Abraham was called 1920 BC, at age 75, as all agree, so he would have been born 2005 BC.

You will definitely have Abraham born some time like 2000 BC or a little before.

Now, this means that was also the time for Genesis 14, when he was 80. It's just that in carbon dates the Chalcolithic (latest possible relevant habitation) of En Geddi (and Asason Tamar is Enb Geddi), was 3500 BC. 1500 extra years. 1565 extra years in my calibration. That means the carbon 14 level was 82.753 pmC. Too low for a very old atmosphere, if you ask me.

Is it more than just science you think Genesis could be "innocently" wrong about, including historic facts? Including in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph?

Are the Gospels wrong on some things too? Or Judges?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "not all Catholics have a monolithic body of beliefs."

Historically, we pretty much do, in favour of Biblical inerrancy.

That's why we decided against Galileo.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "Your only options are 1) completely deny science to preserve your faith."

Why would rejecting Evolution and Millions and Billions of Years be "completely denying Science"?

Is it honest of you to challenge her on that, when I offer you debate on the scientific side, and you reject my offer?

"4) present some kind of evidence that completely overturns everything we've learned in the last few hundred years."

Why would Evolution and Millions and Billions of Years be "everything we've learned"?

Unfair to Faraday and Harvey, somewhat? Is Maxwell taken into account? I doubt he'd appreciate being drafted into Evolution and Millions and Billions of Years ... Fleming inventing penicilline?

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl we [when/what] did the church decide against Galileo?

EmberBright

@carolinajackson7621 I do believe God's Word though. I'm just able to recognise historical context that shows Genesis is likely not fully literal.

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 the idea that Genesis is not fully historical narration is one of the lies that Satan wants to make us believe.

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 also, u believe that the Word of God 3 fold: Scripture, "tradition" & Magisterium. That is another deceiving from Satan.

EmberBright

@carolinajackson7621 Where are you getting that from?

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 the evolution of the 3fold Scripture?

EmberBright

@carolinajackson7621 Explain?

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 u said, @carolinajackson7621 Where are you getting that from?

Since I answered u 2 different comments, 1 about evolution & 1 about the Word of God, I don't know which one u r asking where I got it from.

EmberBright

@carolinajackson7621 Ah. You claimed anything other than your personal literal interpretation of Genesis was a lie from Satan. I'm asking where you're getting that from.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "we did the church decide against Galileo?"

1616 against his theory, 1633 against his theory and person.

"u believe that the Word of God 3 fold: Scripture, "tradition" & Magisterium."

It's actually Biblical.

• Scripture mentioned as per OT already existing, II Tim, as you will know.
• Tradition, if you read Luke 24:27, you will see that the OT has a not-immediately-apparent meaning about Jesus (the meaning Jews go on missing) and that Christ gave all of it to HIs disciples, well, most of the OT doesn't get this Christian exegesis explicitated in the writings of the NT, so, it must be in the Tradition.
• Magisterium, Rom. 10:9--15, or Jesus speaking to its first carriers, in Luke 10:16.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "I'm just able to recognise historical context that shows Genesis is likely not fully literal."

Genesis 12 takes place 430 years before the Exodus event, which is likely when Moses wrote the book of Genesis.
Genesis 46~47 take place 215 years before it. The 3 last chapters of Genesis later still.

Pretending that Genesis 12 to 50 is not fully literal is not accepting historical context, but totally bypassing it, in favour of a reconstruction.

Now, Genesis 1 to 11 should normally have the same genre as Genesis 12 to 50, since it's the same book. If you want to argue otherwise, be very specific.

"other than your personal literal interpretation of Genesis"

What you call "her personal" literal interpretation of Genesis is that of St. Augustine of Hippo, barring the literality of 6 24 hour days versus 1 moment. See City of God, where books 11 to 17 make this very clear.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl but why SPECIFICALLY did the church condemn Galileo?

The OT is full of Messianic prophecies. Yes, I know that well. Just one year ago, I did a Bible lesson about that for the young adults in my church, but the NT explains totally the fulfillment of those prophecies.

The verses in Romans & Luke that u quote don't explain any Magisterium.

EmberBright

@hglundahl Only if we assume your timeline. But that would be circular.

EmberBright

@carolinajackson7621 The Church had issues with Galileo because he wanted to rush out his (at the time) incomplete and technically wrong theory. That and he was a jerk who slandered the Church.

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 thks for explaining

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 Actually, no.

Old Earthers and Theistic Evolutionists generally admit that Genesis 12 and 47 are either 430 and 215 years before the Exodus, or 645 and 430 years before it. The dispute is known as "short soujourn" vs "long soujourn" and Christians traditionally take "short soujourn" due to Galatians 3:17.

You can't put Abraham too far into prehistory since he met a Pharao in Genesis 13.

Also, the chapters from 12 on become more prolix, I take that is redacted originally in writing, rather than orally for shortness and ease of recalling them.

I note you have not answered the point about City of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 " why SPECIFICALLY did the church condemn Galileo?"

Joshua 10, Habacuc, Psalm 103 (a k a 104) ...

The idea of Heliocentrism was condemned as "formally heretical since explicitly against Holy Scripture" ...

"The OT is full of Messianic prophecies."

Luke 24 sees it as Jesus going well beyond such.

So does John, since John 19:36 mentions the fulfilment on Calvary, not of a Messianic prophecy generally so taken, but of a law about the Passover lamb.

"the NT explains totally the fulfillment of those prophecies."

As said, all the books in the OT, not just the Messianic prophecies, are about Jesus according to Luke 24:17.

"The verses in Romans & Luke that u quote don't explain any Magisterium."

They certainly do, since they involve a duty of "hearing" and specifically "hearing" certain previously designated "preachers" who have a "sending" ... just reading the Bible on one's own isn't it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 "because he wanted to rush out his (at the time) incomplete and technically wrong theory."

Not what the condemnation said.

"That and he was a jerk who slandered the Church."

Actually no. He wasn't slandering any publically known person, and the only reference to Pope Urban VIII was very oblique, known only to the Pope and a few others, namely that Pope Urban while still a cardinal (and personal friend of Galileo) had used an argument Galileo put into the mouth of Simplicio.

The argument is: God was able to create the world any way He wanted, and He was able to make it appear in any way He wanted.

A fairly good argument for Geocentrism if we grant that:

• the world appears Geocentric
• God is not a liar.

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 I posted yesterday 2 comments about evolution, but they are missing. I'll try to repost.

EmberBright

@carolinajackson7621 No problem

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 While you are waiting for her repost, take a look at cell types.

The human body has c. 111 cell types, and a one celled eucaryote, supposed to be ancestral to land animals, has only one. Explain the emergence of a new cell type, when each typically needs several genes, and when each gene can have hundreds of base pairs? The waiting time before any of the mutations start being useful when they add up is too long for natural selection to favour them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 I had a comment on dating matters and peopling of Oz go missing too, than reposted, can you see if the repost is there?

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl r repost or my repost? Mine is not there.

@hglundahl Oz???? I see my post now. Don't know if it will stay.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 My own. It should begin adressing Ember and then :

"So, it seems I am getting reinforcements, perhaps you want some as well, if you won't discuss this with me? Otherwise, I am simply supplementing part II of my answer, some turns ago, which seems to have been lost somehow."

@carolinajackson7621 Oz = Australia.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl it's not the same to think that planet earth is in the center of the universe as to think that it is in the center of the solar system. They are 2 different situations

@hglundahl my post was removed a 3rd time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 In Joshua 10:12, Joshua performs a miracle, inspired by God and in doing so presumes it is usually Sun and Moon that go around Earth.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl yes, the whole OT points to Christ.

Pls, read Psalm 22 to see prophecies about the crucifixion.

"Hearing" does not include stuff that does not come directly from God.

Carolina Jackson

@EmberBright2077 I have learned about the many failings of the evolutionary theory, & I had written a very short overview, but it got deleted 3x. I wish I could pass it to u, but don't know how

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 If it comes from God, it doesn't matter if it's directly or via intermediaries.

God has set a line in history where He is keeping His Church, and "Bible alone" falls outside that line.

@carolinajackson7621 How about we try to get under Ember's video with K-pop?

@carolinajackson7621 Psalm 21 (a k a 22) also speaks of the Eucharist.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl Moon does revolve around earth. In that verse in Joshua, he is just asking the sun to stop moving, bc that's the perception they had in those days. Pls, read Psalm 19, with the metaphor of the sun moving around.

When u r in a train, the things outside seem to move too.

I'll read the other verses later on.

EmberBright

@hglundahl Well then I don't know. I am recalling from the discussion on Trent Horn's channel over the controversy. But perhaps one of us is misremembering.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 No, I remember him saying the same thing, and I called him out on it too.

He was wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "he is just asking the sun to stop moving, bc that's the perception they had in those days"

He's not asking. He's commanding on God's behalf.

Big difference, as a miracle worker, he speaks with God's omnipotence and to the degree it's relevant for the miracle omniscience.

Or, God, Who is omniscient, inspired his exact words.

"Pls, read Psalm 19, with the metaphor of the sun moving around."

What makes you think it is a metaphor?

"When u r in a train, the things outside seem to move too."

Yes, and there is a very definite sign that in a train it is an illusion. We know houses and trees don't move. No such indicator about the daily motion, though.

Just because the things we see can be construed that it's really earth moving, doesn't mean they also should be so construed.

EmberBright

@hglundahl As far as I'm understanding the question (and I'm not certain I do), it's not something that isn't accounted for by a long stretch of time, and evolutionary pressures also changing slowly.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl u mean leaving the comment in a video that Ember has posted in his channel?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 er, no.

There is no evolutionary pressure for making 99 % of a system where only 100 % can give the new cell type.

New cell types (sth never observed in real life, and assumed to have in human evolution, apart from nerve cells, occurred once every 3 million years, since one celled, i e not observed) new cell types then are a perfect example of irreducible complexity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Yes, his or her ... whoever it is ...

EmberBright

@hglundahl I've been looking around and it seems like people have answers to your question, though I'll admit the science goes over my head. I personally just can't go any further on that specific question.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl where is the Eucharist in Psalm 22? Or u mean 21?

@hglundahl so, u don't think that the earth revolves around the sun?

@hglundahl God cannot contradict Himsrlf, & tradition & Magisterium contradict Him at times.

Pls, read Mathew 15, when Jesus condemns the man made additions to the Law.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Matthew 15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

He does not say that they are "traditions from Moses" and his opponents don't say so either, they just consider them "traditions of the ancients" in verse 2.

So, condemnation of Tradition — no. Also not of the Magisterium, since a) He had Himself in the time of Moses founded the Magisterium of the Jewish Church, and b) neither side nor the Talmud seems to consider this a thing decided formally by the Jewish, pre-Christian, Magisterium.

Psalm 21:27 or in your Bible 22:27 The poor shall eat and shall be filled: and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their hearts shall live for ever and ever.

The food that makes a heart live for ever and ever is God's Human Body, broken in the shape of bread. The Mannah of the Israelites did not give eternal life.

No, I don't think the Earth revolves around the Sun or turns around itself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 " I'll admit the science goes over my head."

Then you can't know if they really have answers to it. Can you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 I fully agree God cannot contradict Himself, but you have not shown either Tradition or Magisterium contradicting the Bible or otherwise contradicting God, and that includes Matthew 15 not showing that.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl when u quote a Psalm, pls, use only ONE number, bc otherwise it's confusing. Where in Habakuk is the idea of the earth not moving, or being at the center?

EmberBright

@hglundahl I'm saying I'm looking at posts and papers that seem like they have answered the question. By the discussion goes over my head so I can't do anything with it either way. That includes believing you when you claim to have debunked it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 I will not deny the Catholic numbering of the psalms, and I will not deny your differs.

Habacuc says the Sun and Moon stood still "in their orbits" or "in their habitations" ... = it was not phenomenal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@EmberBright2077 OK, let's break it down to really simple.

Let's suppose a cell type were defined by exactly one gene, let's suppose the gene had exactly two amino acids and lets suppose the three base pairs for one of them so happened to differ in only one base pair from anothe amino acid which would be useless in context.

Pretty easy to get the right combination by chance, and in some creatures, that new cell type would be useful.

It would be favoured by natural selection immediately after one mutation.

Let's suppose instead that the gene actually coded for three amino acids, two of them would not be there in the original base pairs, but two of them would still be reachable with one mutation each. The first mutation by itself would not be favoured by natural selection, but the second would.

Not quite as likely as previous.

If it coded for five amino acids, only one of them the right one, from start, and each needed two mutations to get there, now you'd need eight mutations before all would be favoured by natural selection. Five amino acids is fifteen base pairs by the way.

Now, in actual fact, a gene typically has hundreds of base pairs, and a cell type can be defined by as many as ten genes. The retina of certain chiclids has the two cell types rods and cones defined by together ten genes. In a famous example where the chiclids are blind, two of the genes are damaged one or two mutations each, and the whole retina is useless.

You do the maths about how likely it was for the retina to develop gene by gene and each gene mutating base pair by mutating base pair.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl exodus 18 is not about God establishing any Magisterium, but about Jetro explaining Moses that he needed help to judge so many pple.

The food that satisfies forever is not the Eucharus but the fellowship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit.

What would u do in a desert island without access to the Eucharus?

@hglundahl o do believe that the CC is teaching traditions of men today, like it happened in Jesus' time.

@hglundahl one simple example of contradiccion:

Word of God: all have sinned.

Tradition: Mary has not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 On a desert island, I'd try to make a spiritual communion. Btw, John 6 supports my take.

I was not mainly thinking of Exodus 18, but Exodus 19, when Aaron became High Priest. That the High Priests had Magisterial Infallibility we know from John 11:51.

So, the Jewish Church had a Magisterium, while it lasted.

@carolinajackson7621 If you speak of Evolution, I don't think that's the CC.

Word of God: all have sinned.
Also word of God: Jesus hasn't sinned.

So, Mary's humanity is not proof enough that She had sinned, and the angel's and the cousin's greeting involve Her having defeated Satan, i e being sinless.

This is clear by comparing the words used of Her with the words used of Jael and of Judith.

Satan is to Her, what Holophernes is to Judith, what Sisera is to Jael.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl define "Jewish church".

The levitic priesthood is not needed after Jesus' death

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 The Jewish Church, as you say, ended in the moment when the veil in the temple was torn asunder.

It was the predecessor of the Catholic Church that Jesus founded.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl how cam u compare Mary with Jesus????!!!!! Of course Jesus didn't sin! He was God; he could NOT sin!!!! when Paul wrote Romans, it was obvious that Jesus was not in the same category than men. Pls, let's be serious here!

Elizabeth's salutation to Mary, "full of grace, etc" does not imply she was sinless. It implies the Super special blessings of carrying the Messiah.

Regarding the verses from the Apocryphal, I don't consider those books to be inspired Word of God.

@hglundahl I dint say anything about evolution to u.

The church was born on Pentecost Day, bc there is no church without the Holy Spirit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "how cam u compare Mary with Jesus????!!!!!"

Mother / Son.

"Of course Jesus didn't sin! He was God; he could NOT sin!!!!"

Even as Man, He was able to not sin.

"Elizabeth's salutation to Mary, "full of grace, etc" does not imply she was sinless."

Her salutation was actually "blessed among women" and continued "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" = an echo of Genesis 3:15. B U T the first part is also an echo of:

Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent.

The comparison with Judith just confirms it.

So, even if there were no Holophernes or Judith, who was the Sisera to the New Jael? The echo from Genesis 3:15 gives the answer.

"The church was born on Pentecost Day, bc there is no church without the Holy Spirit."

The Church was born on Calvary, and was fullgrown on Pentecost.