Quoran Medley: Creationism and Other Roman Catholic

All of below

are from six years ago, answers and comment exchange.

Q I

How do people know Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-people-know-Adam-and-Eve-were-the-first-people-on-Earth-1/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Self Employed at Writer and Composer

1. We have God's word for it.
2. We also have a fairly good reasoning from purely historic (not archaeologic, but historic) facts.

Here it is.

In Eden, Adam was told by God that God had created him. God then gave Adam half and half of an occasion to know He had created Eve, even if Adam had to trust God's word on this.

Suppose Adam had not been the first man. Suppose "God" had been a "trickster" who deceived Adam.

Well, sooner or later Adam's descendants would come across someone not descended from Adam but from the pre-Adamites.

Same, if Flood had not been world wide, sooner or later Noah's descendants would have come across someone with no memory of the Flood.

This never conclusively happened.

As for Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark not being just characters in a story book, we have the fact it was a story taken as historic, and not as made up, from the first and as far as we can follow it.

As for rival tales also taken for history, they never seem to match the historic detail of Genesis.

Q II

Who is Saint Lucy, and what did she do to become a Saint?
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-Saint-Lucy-and-what-did-she-do-to-become-a-Saint/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.

I think you refer to St Lucy of Sicily.

She died for her faith, rejecting a pagan suitor because preferring Jesus Christ and she was executed - as a teen.

Martyrs are fairly obvious saints. Her feast was 13th of December.

Q III

Was Martin Luther (the one in the Protestant reformation) a fundamentalist?
https://www.quora.com/Was-Martin-Luther-the-one-in-the-Protestant-reformation-a-fundamentalist/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Self Employed at Writer and Composer

Neither more nor less than the Catholics condemning him, or perhaps a bit less, since he was willing to fidget about Epistle of St James.

So, yes, Martin Luther from Eisleben or Wittenberg was basically about as Fundamentalist as Cardinal Cajetan who debated him or as Pope Leo X who first condemned him (one bull of warning, Exsurge Domine, and, after Cajetan’s mission was in vain, another bull of actual condemnation, Decet Romanum Pontificem).

The guys who were NOT Fundamentalists back then, in religion, were the Socinian reformers, Lelio and Fausto Sozzini. They were equally condemned by Catholics and by Lutherans.

Q IV

With regards to creationism and earth's age, why do many Christians not amend their interpretation of biblical text to realistically stay within the confines of what modern science has proven, or make bold claims without proper research or evidence?
https://www.quora.com/With-regards-to-creationism-and-earths-age-why-do-many-Christians-not-amend-their-interpretation-of-biblical-text-to-realistically-stay-within-the-confines-of-what-modern-science-has-proven-or-make-bold-claims-without-proper-research-or-evidence/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Joseph Holliday

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

"With regards to creationism and earth's age,"

Yes, a nice topic.

"why do many Christians not amend their interpretation of biblical text"

There are two text versions in the main, for Christians. LXX and Masoretic (the latter includes KJV but also Vulgate, as far as chronology is concerned).

Of the LXX, there seems to be some more wiggle room, the more so as "the second Cainan" is not in all LXX manuscripts.

But for "day age" and for "gap theory" as in a long gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, Mark 10:6 and even Exodus 20:11 leaves no wiggle room.

This means, with any given version, we are really and truyly stuck with the "Ussher methodology" - the one used way before Ussher by Syncellus and St Jerome on LXX texts.

No other method of interpretation is really Christian, since no other one can be reconciled with God speaking to Moses in Exodus 20 and no other one can be reconciled to Jesus being God in the Flesh, when He spoke in Mark 10:6.

"to realistically stay within the confines of what modern science has proven,"

Modern science has proven strictly nothing against LXX ages, and as to carbon buildup presumed as explanation for "long carbon dated ages" (a carbon date for before 5500 BC is carbon 14 both decaying AND starting out as lower than modern atmospheric content : the percentage it was lower is as much a part of the modern expert's carbon date as the percentage it actually lowered over actual years). As to this, well, I am confident the carbon buildup cannot be proven as too drastic for LXX dates, and awaiting whether it be so for Masoretic dates.

"or make bold claims without proper research or evidence?"

The Bible as such, to a Christian, is proper evidence. If you do not believe the Bible is inerrant (or at least believe in errors of such marginal type which would finally not be able to account for errors here), it is evidence.

If you don't believe it, too bad for you, you are missing out on the most important piece of evidence.

That said, we certainly do "proper research" - as I am doing about carbon dates and especially how the carbon buildup can be explained in the post-Flood world, as also on other things.

Your ignoring what we do is not tantamount to our not doing it.

Joseph Holliday

I didn't mean all Christians, I meant many of the ones that I've encountered. I grew up in a Christian household in an area that many call the "bible belt". I personally identify as a Christian myself, but I have a lot of interest in science and scientific research. The main reason I ask the question is my entire family and most people I know locally who are Christian are against my interests in science and expect me to accept everything that they tell me as fact without doing any research myself. They think it's wrong for me to even question anything regarding our beliefs. I'm trying to understand why they are so against my interests in science and why they think I must blindly accept everything without asking questions. Normally, I would explain these sorts of things in the "question details" section of my questions, but Quora removed the "question details" feature, making it difficult to get what I'm actually trying to ask across.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How about combining the interests by doing some research in creation science?

As to why your family act as they do, well most people in any culture or environment don’t do any research at all.

Do you like palaeontology?

You might enjoy my attempts (so far not too stymied) to refute the “geological column”, like here:

Question for Madagascar ...

Or, if you like carbon date questions, you might like this:

Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End

And this:

How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event?

There is a lot more material, of course, on CMI:

Creation | Creation Ministries International

Sorry for mentioning my much more successful rivals after myself, but you will not overlook them that way either.

As to your family’s reaction, they might be unduly worried that the evidence you examine must bring you away from the faith, as they have not seen how much their position (which on this question is correct) is backed up by good research.

“Normally, I would explain these sorts of things in the "question details" section of my questions, but Quora removed the "question details" feature, making it difficult to get what I'm actually trying to ask across.”

Now question details are given in obligatorily non-anonymous comments on question. The question details previously given still exist, there, with “quora question details bot” or sth as “user name”.

Q V

Is it a sin for Catholics to watch movies online for free?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-sin-for-Catholics-to-watch-movies-online-for-free/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Been going to movies most of my childhood and teens.

It is a sin for Catholics to watch bad movies, like porn, or like Last Temptation for Christ.

Watching a movie for free online, watching it online after paying, or watching it offline (television or cinema) after paying or being invited is not relevant.

If you shoplift a video in order to watch the movie, the shoplifting is a sin, watching the movie does not add to the sin, but not giving the video back (perhaps in a way not tracking your to the shoplifting) does add to the sin.

But we ARE all less old than 8000 years. (quora)

Q

According to our cosmic calendar, men appeared at the very last moment around 9 or 10 o'clock pm on December 31, which collides with the theory of creation. Was it because of the inability of Moses and Mohamed to lay it down in a scientific way or what happened there?
https://www.quora.com/According-to-our-cosmic-calendar-men-appeared-at-the-very-last-moment-around-9-or-10-oclock-pm-on-December-31-which-collides-with-the-theory-of-creation-Was-it-because-of-the-inability-of-Moses-and-Mohamed-to-lay-it-down-in-a-scientific-way-or-what-happened-there/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered 4m ago

No, Sir, nor was it the inability of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, when He said Adam and Eve were there from the Beginning of Creation.

The real inability is yours to distinguish calendars made by real observation from sci fi calendars, like the one you refer to and which I knew in my childhood before becoming a Christian, and actually believed for some time even after becoming a Christian.

If you want details on why your sci fi calendar is not based on observation, feel free to bring up your favourite dating method …

Q

How can a qualified geologist also believe in the Biblical creation?
https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-qualified-geologist-also-believe-in-the-Biblical-creation/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered just now

For two qualified geologists who are not believing the Omphalos hypothesis, see Emil Silvestru and Tas Walker:

Dr Tas Walker - creation.com
http://creation.com/dr-tas-walker

Dr Emil Silvestru
http://creation.com/dr-emil-silvestru

Q

How do creationists explain ancient civilizations?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-creationists-explain-ancient-civilizations/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8

Examples like the enormous Göbekli Tepe that is thought to be 13 000 years old or just the Sumers that were thought to have lived around 6000 years ago.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered Aug 31, 2016

Actually very simple.

We do not have annals of Göbekli Tepe or of Nippur from the first building stone down to the present day, year by year.

We cannot historically date Göbekli Tepe to 13 000 years old or early Ur or Uruk to exactly 4004 BC (as AronRa amused himself with doing, as a spoof on Ussher).

We date the dates "13 000 BP" or "4000 BC" by C14.

And possibility of a past but recent radical C14 build up means there is an inbuilt error potential in the method.

Assume C14 level in atmosphere was once exactly 50% of present one. Sth which had recently ceased to breathe back then would automatically have 5730 years (=half life of C14, not Libby's but the Cambridge corrected one) more than its real age in our datings. Or assume the level was 35% and we get 8680 years more than the real age (math example from Regina University Saskatchewan).

I have myself some hesitation whether I should coordinate Abraham's known lifetime (born 2015 BC) closer with dated 13 000 BP and Urfa close to Göbekli Tepe or with 6000 BP and Woolley's Ur.

That kind of hesitation is one difficulty for making a Creationist recalibration acceptable to all Young Earth Creationists. But all Young Earth Creationists do agree there is a real recalibration, even if we can't be sure exactly which one it is.

Updated

Tuesday 9.I.2018

Q

I am a Christian. I struggle with what the Bible says as far as dates, the age of the earth, etc. Carbon dating and other scientific methods seem to be valid but in direct conflict. What should I make of this?
https://www.quora.com/I-am-a-Christian-I-struggle-with-what-the-Bible-says-as-far-as-dates-the-age-of-the-earth-etc-Carbon-dating-and-other-scientific-methods-seem-to-be-valid-but-in-direct-conflict-What-should-I-make-of-this/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Sat

"I am a Christian."

Good for you.

"I struggle with what the Bible says as far as dates, the age of the earth, etc. "

Seems fairly common?

"Carbon dating and other scientific methods seem to be valid but in direct conflict. What should I make of this?"

Carbon dating as such is not in direct conflict, since it can easily be accomodated to Biblical timescale (at least LXX version, even as short as St Jerome's chronology in Roman Martyrology for Christmas) by presuming there was a rise in carbon 14 content.

In such a case, anything from before it reached present content will be dated as older than it really is, part of "apparent age" being from how much original content has decayed, part of it from how low it was compared to present day when it occurred.

To put it simply, if Göbekli Tepe was 2551 - 2511 BC (an arguable Biblical date for Babel), part of the lower carbon content now is because that from then has decayed, and it is a percentage which corresponds to the real age, but it is multiplied to another percentage, namely how much lower carbon content was back then , which has no direct bearing on the age, but which was rising, and rising so fast the "extra years" are very different, "thousand years" apart.

As to other methods, they don't seem to be valid, unless you start out confusing them with carbon 14, which works really well for recent samples, from since carbon 14 content in atmosphere evened out to present level (or pre-industrial level).

Q

With regards to creationism and earth's age, why do many Christians not amend their interpretation of biblical text to realistically stay within the confines of what modern science has proven, or make bold claims without proper research or evidence?
https://www.quora.com/With-regards-to-creationism-and-earths-age-why-do-many-Christians-not-amend-their-interpretation-of-biblical-text-to-realistically-stay-within-the-confines-of-what-modern-science-has-proven-or-make-bold-claims-without-proper-research-or-evidence/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested

by Joseph Holliday

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered 1m ago

"With regards to creationism and earth's age,"

Yes, a nice topic.

"why do many Christians not amend their interpretation of biblical text"

There are two text versions in the main, for Christians. LXX and Masoretic (the latter includes KJV but also Vulgate, as far as chronology is concerned).

Of the LXX, there seems to be some more wiggle room, the more so as "the second Cainan" is not in all LXX manuscripts.

But for "day age" and for "gap theory" as in a long gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, Mark 10:6 and even Exodus 20:11 leaves no wiggle room.

This means, with any given version, we are really and truyly stuck with the "Ussher methodology" - the one used way before Ussher by Syncellus and St Jerome on LXX texts.

No other method of interpretation is really Christian, since no other one can be reconciled with God speaking to Moses in Exodus 20 and no other one can be reconciled to Jesus being God in the Flesh, when He spoke in Mark 10:6.

"to realistically stay within the confines of what modern science has proven,"

Modern science has proven strictly nothing against LXX ages, and as to carbon buildup presumed as explanation for "long carbon dated ages" (a carbon date for before 5500 BC is carbon 14 both decaying AND starting out as lower than modern atmospheric content : the percentage it was lower is as much a part of the modern expert's carbon date as the percentage it actually lowered over actual years). As to this, well, I am confident the carbon buildup cannot be proven as too drastic for LXX dates, and awaiting whether it be so for Masoretic dates.

"or make bold claims without proper research or evidence?"

The Bible as such, to a Christian, is proper evidence. If you do not believe the Bible is inerrant (or at least believe in errors of such marginal type which would finally not be able to account for errors here), it is evidence.

If you don't believe it, too bad for you, you are missing out on the most important piece of evidence.

That said, we certainly do "proper research" - as I am doing about carbon dates and especially how the carbon buildup can be explained in the post-Flood world, as also on other things.

Your ignoring what we do is not tantamount to our not doing it.

Joseph Holliday

8m ago

I didn't mean all Christians, I meant many of the ones that I've encountered. I grew up in a Christian household in an area that many call the "bible belt". I personally identify as a Christian myself, but I have a lot of interest in science and scientific research. The main reason I ask the question is my entire family and most people I know locally who are Christian are against my interests in science and expect me to accept everything that they tell me as fact without doing any research myself. They think it's wrong for me to even question anything regarding our beliefs. I'm trying to understand why they are so against my interests in science and why they think I must blindly accept everything without asking questions. Normally, I would explain these sorts of things in the "question details" section of my questions, but Quora removed the "question details" feature, making it difficult to get what I'm actually trying to ask across.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

How about combining the interests by doing some research in creation science?

As to why your family act as they do, well most people in any culture or environment don’t do any research at all.

Do you like palaeontology?

You might enjoy my attempts (so far not too stymied) to refute the “geological column”, like here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Question for Madagascar ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/01/question-for-madagascar.html

Or, if you like carbon date questions, you might like this:

Creation vs. Evolution : Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/05/tas-walker-and-myself-on-c14-glacial.html

And this:

Creation vs. Evolution : How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/how-fast-was-carbon-14-forming-during.html

There is a lot more material, of course, on CMI:

Creation | Creation Ministries International
https://creation.com/

Sorry for mentioning my much more successful rivals after myself, but you will not overlook them that way either.

As to your family’s reaction, they might be unduly worried that the evidence you examine must bring you away from the faith, as they have not seen how much their position (which on this question is correct) is backed up by good research.

“Normally, I would explain these sorts of things in the "question details" section of my questions, but Quora removed the "question details" feature, making it difficult to get what I'm actually trying to ask across.”

Now question details are given in obligatorily non-anonymous comments on question. The question details previously given still exist, there, with “quora question details bot” or sth as “user name”.