Before 18:27 and after 29:18 I had nothing to contradict nor elicit clarifications on.
Joe’s WORST Take?
Scholastic Answers | 9 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDFWHChEA0
18:27 While I certainly agree Scripture has figures of speech and popular expressions, this has of recent been vastly exaggerated in scope.
I just commented under Dr. Joel Duff who has some sharp things to say ... to me less interesting ... on how CMI have very exotic views on how to solve the Distant Starlight problem (if Andromeda Galaxy was created 6 to 7.5 k years ago, on day 4, and is 150,000 LY away, how do we see it less than 150,000 years after it started to shine light?).
My comment is how this problem is totally solved by Geocentrism and Angelic movers of celestial objects.
Some even earlier have taken "four corners" to be a figure of speech ... I take it Sts Isaias and John knew where Alaska, Cape Horn, Tasmania and Siberia are and through what lines their direction is outlined to Jerusalem (all four points are represented via closer intermediaries in Acts 2).
The idea of "popular" presupposes the existence of an erudition that "goes further than" popular views. If this erudiction didn't exist in Joshua's day, Joshua 10:13 cannot by a pregnantly popular expression.
In Joshua 10:12, the author is not describing what Sun and Moon ("appear to") do, but he is describing the words by which Joshua as miracle maker ordered them. If it was Earth that ceased and 12 / 24 h later resumed rotation, this would be the only time when a miracle worker adressed the order to sth other than that which was supposed to miraculously change behaviour.
A theory of "accomodation" among Protestants (19th, perhaps already 18th CC) indeed stated that God inspired Joshua to utter words better suited to the understanding of the Israelites. They also went as far as to suggest this also happened with his Namesake when referred to as and speaking as if casting out demons. This is inadmissible, therefore Joshua also gave the miraculous order, after praying, to whatever was to change behaviour, i e it was actually Sun and Moon that stopped, it is actually Sun and Moon that go around us each day, not we rotating below them.
18:51 "God also, speaking to men." (Pesch)
Valid as possible explanation of Joshua 10:13, since the hagiographer and ultimately God together tell us what the Israelites saw in the sky.
But in Joshua 10:12 God says to us what Joshua said, and Joshua wasn't speaking to men. Like his Divine Namesake in Mark 1:25 is also not speaking to men. Not even to the one possessed.
20:20 "as Benedict XV points out"
Where?
In praeclara summorum (cited by the Dimond brothers) has only a very indirect allusion to Geocentrism possibly not being true. A subordinate clause in concessive subjunctive.
21:02 "speak about certain historical figures"
Like the list between Adam (over Seth) and Noah and his sons in Genesis 5, and the list between the son Shem and Abraham, in Genesis 11, right?
You do hold Abraham was born between 292 and 1070 years after a universal Flood, and that between less than 1400 and 2262 years after Adam and Eve were created, right?
21:08 Ah, Spiritus Paraclitus!
Thank you!
21:08 bis After reading through Spiritus Paraclitus I find that the relevant passage is as chemically free from any direct endorsement of Heliocentrism as the previous encyclical he looked back on Providentissimus Deus is.
Neither Leo XIII nor Benedict XV are saying Heliocentrism is compatible with Joshua 10:12.
Both are skimming around the subject and so to speak tacitly inviting theologians to speak up if they think so.
And given the outcome, some of these theologians were horrible liberals.
Since 18 November 1893, theologians have basically a standing invitation to defend Heliocentrism without attacking Biblical inerrancy. Challenge so far not met, invitation so far not taken.
Date Calculator gave:
It is 48 386 days from the start date to the end date, end date included.
Or 132 years, 5 months, 23 days including the end date.
Or 1589 months, 23 days including the end date.
I'm not sure if it's programmed for 1900 not being a leap year.
27:11 I hope there is no ban on this opinion:
St. Luke in Acts 27 wrote about "Illyric Sea" and copyists changed it to "Adriatic Sea" after 140 AD so as to keep the text comprehensible in face of an official name change.
I just defended St. Luke's authorship of Acts on this ground against someone who pretended Acts were written after 140 AD.
29:18 In Providentissimus Deus, passage quoted, the wording "as left by the hagiographers" seems to indicate that the actual text could be different from the Vulgate, for instance the LXX or an older version of the LXX ... do I overread this?
No comments:
Post a Comment