jeudi 13 avril 2017

Repéré sur Facebook


À une de mes dernières connections, je vois ceci:

Conseils pour identifier les fausses informations

Nous voulons mettre fin à la propagation des fausses informations sur Facebook. Apprenez-en davantage sur les mesures que nous prenons pour combattre ce phénomène. Pour limiter la propagation de ces fausses informations, voici quelques conseils concernant les types de contenu dont il faut vous méfier:

  • Méfiez-vous des titres. Les fausses actualités ont souvent des titres accrocheurs tout en majuscules avec des points d’exclamation. Si les affirmations du titre semblent invraisemblables, elles le sont probablement.

  • Examinez attentivement l’URL. Une URL frauduleuse conçue pour ressembler à une autre peut être le signe d’un site de fausses informations. De nombreux sites de fausses informations imitent de vraies sources d’actualité en apportant de légères modifications à l’URL. Vous pouvez accéder au site pour comparer l’URL aux sources reconnues.

  • Effectuez des recherches sur la source. Vérifiez que l’actualité a été rédigée par une source de confiance reconnue pour son exactitude. Si l’actualité provient d’un organisme inconnu, consultez la section À propos pour en savoir plus.

  • Faites attention aux mises en forme inhabituelles. De nombreux sites de fausses informations contiennent des fautes d’orthographe ou une présentation incohérente. Lisez avec prudence si vous voyez de tels signes.

  • Tenez compte des photos. Les fausses actualités contiennent souvent des images ou des vidéos retouchées. Il arrive parfois que la photo soit authentique, mais qu’elle ait été sortie de son contexte. Vous pouvez rechercher la photo ou l’image afin de vérifier sa provenance.

  • Contrôlez les dates. Les fausses actualités contiennent parfois des chronologies incohérentes ou des dates d’évènements qui ont été modifiées.

  • Vérifiez les preuves apportées. Vérifiez les sources de l’auteur pour vous assurer qu’elles sont exactes. Le manque de preuves ou la référence à des experts anonymes peuvent être le signe d’une fausse actualité.

  • Consultez d’autres articles. Si aucune autre source ne fait référence à cette actualité, il peut s’agir d’une fausse information. Si l’actualité est relayée par plusieurs sources de confiance, il est plus probable qu’elle soit vraie.

  • L’actualité est-elle un canular ou une blague ? Il est parfois difficile de faire la différence entre une fausse actualité et une forme d’humour ou de satire. Vérifiez si votre source est connue pour ses parodies, et si les détails et le ton de l’article sont simplement satiriques.

  • Certaines actualités sont délibérément fausses. Faites preuve de sens critique lorsque vous lisez des actualités, et ne partagez que les informations qui sont pour vous crédibles.


Si vous pensez qu’une publication du fil d’actualité est fausse, vous pouvez la signaler à Facebook.

  • Cliquez sur en regard de la publication que vous souhaitez marquer comme étant fausse.

  • Cliquez sur Signaler la publication.

  • Cliquez sur Il s’agit d’une fausse information.

  • Cliquez sur Marquer cette publication comme une fausse information.


Comment les informations sont contestées :

Les actualités signalées comme fausses par les utilisateurs de Facebook peuvent être vérifiées par des contrôleurs d’informations indépendants. Une actualité peut être marquée comme contestée si ces organismes vérificateurs concluent qu’il s’agit d’une fausse information.

Pour découvrir la raison pour laquelle une actualité est marquée comme contestée sur Facebook :

  • Passez la souris et cliquez sur sous l’actualité contestée.

  • Cliquez sur Découvrez pourquoi ceci est contesté ou accédez directement au site web de l’organisme vérificateur indépendant.


Ils se seraient rendu compte que c'est une mauvaise idée de faire confiance à des morceaux d'opinion de Huffington Post? Bon, reste que là ils confonderaient "opinion" et "information".

Ou s'agit-il du phénomène "fausse actualité satirique" trop souvent prise pour des actualités en vrai? Là, par contre, il convient plutôt de connaître les sites satiriques, et ils sont souvent dénoncés comme tels devant d'autre sur le fil de discussion.

Par example Eye of the Tiber, The Onion Dome et The Onion sont des sites satiriques. Tout comme "The Babylon Bee | Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire". Entre ceux-ci, The Onion est "laïque" les autres trois sont Catholique, Orthodoxe et Protestant. Pour illustrer que Eye of the Tiber est satirique, il suffit de regarder l'article sur la messe primice d'un Père Justin Bieber. Comme on sait, celui-ci est autant peu prêtre que moi-même.

Non, les sites qui donnent des fake news pendant 364 jours par an (et peut-être des vrais actus les 1 avril?) ne sont plus un problème que des sites qui font des blagues chaque 1 avril.

En toute probabilité, par contre, il s'agit plutôt de contrarier un autre phénomène. Internet permet aux gens de découvrir points de vue autres que leur propre et ancestral, et notamment aux jeunes de découvrir un point de vue autre qu'un point de vue ancestral encore en vie et capable de se fâcher pour ça. Ce point de vue ancestral et fâché est surtout familier avec le repérage d'actualités, plutôt que des points de vue différents. Donc, ce point de vue déjà ancestral et encore en vie est capable de reconstruire par exemple une conversion au Catholicisme ou au Créationnisme Jeune Terre ou au Géocentrisme (trois positions qui ne se contredisent pas, d'ailleurs, un catholique devrait plutôt être créationniste jeune terre et géocentrique) avec une tromperie perpétré par une actualité frauduleuse. Assez souvent, ceci n'est pas le cas. Mais, ces points de vue déjà ancestraux exigent alors une rectification. Le site qui a communiqué son point de vue non ancestral en telle ou telle famille a été signalé à un point de vue filial qui faisait des recherches sur FB. Donc, FB est "responsable pour la proliférations des fausse actualités" ou des faux informations. Donc FB devrait faire quelque chose pour contrarier cette tendance "néfaste".

Et Mark Zuckerberg (qui avait fondé FB par un coup de génie blagueur et bon enfant et libre comme tout) est devenu trop vieux pour ne pas en tenir compte. On peut donc craindre que ceci pourrait être juste la première étape.

C'est déjà pas mal que c'est encore possible de savoir pourquoi tel ou tel vérificateur a jugé une information frauduleuse. Ça permet encore une certaine liberté de propre réflexion. Et si ça va disparaître ça aussi?

Ou, peut-être FB aux États-Unis n'a rien à voir, peut-être c'est une exigence pour les connections francophones ou dont l'ordinateur est registré en France?

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Jeudi Saint
13.IV.2017

PS, fatigué comme je suis souvent, j'avais oublié ceci avant de signer : c'est par contre très mal que le site encourage ses utilisateurs de juger les information en fonction du caractère "autorisé" des sites qui les diffusent./HGL

vendredi 7 avril 2017

New Debate on Angelic Movers


Intro
November 29th, 2016

Hans-Georg Lundahl
a partagé un lien.
29 novembre 2016
On theoogyweb, I got in a muddle about the speed westward of aether near Earth:

Theologyweb : Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?
[linking to page 9 where my own muddle starts]
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?12861-Is-the-Stationary-Earth-the-Heaviest-Object-in-the-Universe/page9


Any suggestions?

Dean Edridge
Great, I'll check it out.

[He checked, probably, but gave no answer. I had to work it out without help from the group, Mach's principle comes to aid]

Debate
30 March 2017 - 7 April 2017

Groove Shack
I notice quite early in the thread your comment on "angelic movers"?

Why is this concept required exactly? I confess I have not read much further in the forum thread, you may have explained it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not sure it is totally required, after checking out with a Heliocentric that Earth circling round sun would work for billions of years, as far as added matter and lowered momentum is concerned, due to impacts.

Then as Geocentric applying Mach's principle.

But I am not sure they are not required either, since we were not talking about how planets influence each other, and what if some see "tenth planet" as a gravitational must, and it isn't there?

That would prove some non-Newtonian or not-so-simple-Newtonian causality.

However, required or not, angelic movers are a plus per se.

It brings me in line with Christian thinkers like St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas and a few more.

Groove Shack
Yes no problem, at the end of the day a Christian is going to reach the point in his explanations of the Geo-model (and creation of course) where they surely must invoke some kind of supernatural force.

Personally, my explanation for how the heavens started their revolution around the Earth is simply God's Spirit, as there is direct support for this in Genesis.

(Genesis 1:2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

We know that God created the Earth with water. And we also know that the water covered the entirety of the face of the Earth because later we hear about God gathering up the water into certain areas.

So the Earth is covered with water and God's spirit moved upon the face of the waters. To me I imagine God's spirit moving against/over/upon ALL the waters on the face of the Earth. As we know without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a sphere, this gives the impression of a circular movement for the spirit of God on the waters. An orbital motion in fact. Like God is sending His Spirit around the Earth.

So this concept of a stationary Earth and a supernatural rotational component is introduced very early to the reader.

I also notice modern science has no issue with the universe coming into existence with a spin, although as usual, they are shy to proffer an explanation of how this happened.

----------------

Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"

If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."

The Daily Galaxy : Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"
July 08, 2011
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/-is-the-universe-spinning-new-research-says-yes.html


----------------

Whether the universe requires continuous supernatural maintenance to keep the momentum going is also doubtful according to Luka Popov:

----------------

"If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be generated. That same pseudo- potential then causes the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on it."

- 'Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions' : Luka Popov, University of Zagreb, Department of Physics, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia

LINK: Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions
Luka Popov 6 Feb 2013
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6045.pdf


----------------

Nice to meet you Hans-Georg

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nice to meet you too.

As to the DAILY movement westward, I think it is all God's work and you are pretty right.

It is the longer movements eastward in relation to fixed stars (a stellar month for moon, a stellar year for sun and so on, some involving retrogrades - there are no retrogrades in the daily movement - and also the movemens of comets) which I attribute to angelic movers.

I have no trouble with your reading on how all of heaven started moving, since that is about the daily westward movement.

The other, long-termier, movements, well, they didn't exist yet in Genesis 1:2.

There is Scriptural support for angelic movers too, in the sense which does not contradict above.

Job 38:7 and Baruch 3:34-35.

Groove Shack
Yes agreed, I think the initiation of the "proper" eastward motions of the sun, moon etc happen in Genesis 1:17.

(Genesis 1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(Genesis 1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

He SET them. Strongs concordance offers Set (FORTH) as one possible translation of:
נתן
nâthan
naw-than'

Isn't this God setting forth the lights in their "proper" orbit through the firmament?

Again, once they have been set forth in their orbit it is arguable whether or not they would need supernatural maintenance to continue said motion as sheer angular momentum would be enough, regardless which way the actual fabric of the universe is rotating diurnally.

Thoughts?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Whether angular momentum would be enough or not, angular momentum is inferior to man in ontological dignity, and angels are superior to man in ontological dignity, so it is preferrable to think what is higher up, if not superior in itself (and balls of gas are not) at least has a higher immediate causality.

Groove Shack
I think as Geocentrists talking to opponents we need to explain all the dynamics in terms of known science as far as possible until we start invoking supernatural involvement. Just my personal opinion. You can spook a lot of people, especially atheists, by getting too spiritual too early.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Let's put it like this: talking to opponents is different whether you are arguing over the web - before an audience - or in private (including emails not intended for publication).

But one thing is like : if you think a thing is true, you may wait with saying it, but you may not deny it.

If I don't think the Newtonian explanation is true or the whole truth, I don't have a right to towt it as my own conviction.

I can refer to Sungenis, I can say "Newtonian vectors can be part of the reason, but do not exclude angels as the principal movers", I can do this or that, but I cannot try to master a complete explanation I don't believe in and use that for apologetics while using something else for my own very private edification.

Groove Shack
Yeah that's fair enough....I just wondered why specifically "angelic movers". I've looked over Job 38:7 and Baruch 3:34-35 and I honestly can't see it.

Where does St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas talk about this please?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There are two readings of Job 38:7 and Baruch 3:34-35.

  • 1) Stars themselves are alive.
  • 2) Stars have movers that are alive.


Ramandu and Coriakin (1), or (2) Oyarsa of Malacandra and Oyarsa of Perelandra, to put it in the terms of CSL.

In Paris, where I am, position 1 was condemned by bishop Stephen II Tempier 740 years ago, which leaves me with position 2.

In England, the condemnations of Tempier were adopted in all dioceses.

This means that all colonies of either England or France, and all former colonies, should avoid position 1.

However, if you are in a place neither originally colonised by either, like an Amerindian reservation or the states formerly belonging to Spain (Flórida, Tejas, Nueva Méjico, Arizona, California la Alta) you are free to prefer position 1.

Now for St Thomas Aquinas:

Comment on Job:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2014/05/terra-et-astra-secundum-aquinatem-in.html


and here are resources available in English:

Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor - hanslundahl
http://hanslundahl.livejournal.com/964.html


And the place where St Augustine was mentioning it in passing was brought up by fellow Geocentric Craig Crawford :

HGL's F.B. writings : Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers!
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2016/05/craig-crawford-is-back-in-fray-on.html


(The link records our debate back then)

Groove Shack
Hans-Georg Lundahl Isn't there a third pretty obvious meaning to Job 38:7 that the stars are being compared to angels? It's figurative?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time stars are used to represent angels, both being numerous and pure.

Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

I mean...do you hold that Jesus actually is the morning star?

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star

There is plenty of figurative language in Job 38:7 and I don't think there is any need to take that particular verse literally or semi-literally.

It's interesting to look at the Catholic view of things but being a simple Christian I'm not feeling a burning need to pick apart the words Thomas Aquinas or Augustine on this subject.

What you've given me from the bible I'm afraid is not convincing at all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It's figurative?"

I don't think that is very obvious as the right answer, especially not if compared to Baruch or a place in Judges.

That Jesus is said to be "morning star" may be figurative, but may also mean he took over the job as "Oyarsa" - angelic mover - when Satan, "the fallen morning star", lost that job as falling.

Wonder whether it refers to Mercury or Venus if so.

The bishops of the seven Churches are to Jesus as man like angels are to God : emissaries.

That said, they certainly do have angels, which may be angels that also are angelic movers each of a star.

Also, not quite comparable to Job, since Apocalypse is a prophetic book while Job is getting quizzed on precisely Creation.

On your view, we shouldn't think of the "womb of ice" to refer to the ice age either, I suppose?

It is also wrong to consider Catholicism as one denomination and non-Catholics as "simply a Christian", though I suppose you know no better.

We are like Juda, you are like Samaria.

Check out John chapter 4 on what Jesus said at the Well of Sychar.

Groove Shack
So what your saying is that a figurative or poetic meaning to Job 38:7 does not even deserve to be on your list as number 3?

  • 1) Stars themselves are alive.
  • 2) Stars have movers that are alive.
  • 3) It's a poetic comparison between angels and stars.

    ?


"womb of ice"?

You've completely lost me there mate. That's not even what the text says...it says "Out of whose womb came the ice?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, dealing with your 3.

What is poetic about comparing an angel to stars if neither stars are a class of angels nor angels carry all or some stars?

Dealing with apocalypse.

Suppose St John believed like St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and I.

We know that the angels of the seven Churches, as recipients of mail, were the bishops of these Churches.

The text figures very well if we consider that a bishop holds up the light of faith to the soul, like angels hold up the light of stars to our eyes.

Hence, all "poetic comparisons" between stars and angels can be considered as expanding on the fact that stars are anyway usually connected to angels.

We also know that book of Henoch at least was around some century or two before Christ.

Its astronomic book (which seems erroneous on calendar matters) explains the movement of the sun in this matter, there is an angel conducting it.

Hence, my mechanism of angels conducting stars was at least an option for those considering in some ways astronomy in the time of Christ. Well, this option was certainly not explicitly rejected by Christ in the words in the canonic Gospels.

Out of whose womb came the ice makes sense if you know how glaciers look. And if you think of the ice age.

This means "womb" was not an idle metaphor. There is perhaps not exactly anyone's womb involved, but a glacier going forth looks a bit like a buttocks first or head first birth. The words are poetic, not because they are inexact, but because they are exact. The frost also is not exactly engendered - but even so, it looks like offspring or harvest of sth, like the harvest of manna. Here too, the word is poetic because it is exact.

So, on your view, stars are not a lower class of angels, not a class of spirits just below angels and not moved by angels either. Where is YOUR poetic motive for comparing an angel to a star, if so?

I am not contesting that the Bible gives a connection, but if it were ONLY a poetic one, how do you explain it as poetry?

"do you hold that Jesus actually is the morning star?"

Satan is called fallen morning star in Isaiah, Jesus is called morning star in an epistle of Peter.

I think the word of God is moving one star which was previously moved by Satan before he fell (note, this means the fall of Satan was after day four, or after its creation deed - not all Catholic theologians would agree on that).

But suppose instead we are speaking of leading a choir of angels not connected to stars per se, the comparison also makes sense if morning star is leading a similar procession of stars, moved by their angels.

Therefore, the places you took cannot be used against angels moving stars.

Now I have a place which totally excludes your interpretation 3:

Judges 5:[20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Either looks like my 1, stars are alive, or my 2, in which case angels are using their stars not just as "candles", but also as "battlestars". How would you fit in 3 there?

Interruption

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I might mention here, as a separate subthread, I also have an extra-Biblical reason for taking angelic movers.

This allows the phenomena known as "aberration" and "parallax" to be a dance of angels holding stars, in time with but not necessarily in pace with the sun.

This, to my mind, is the simplest way to get around the distant starlight problem.

[No subthread here as yet,, but answers to previous were added below:]

Back to debate
where it left off on subthread.

Groove Shack
[missed this one]
"What is poetic about comparing an angel to stars"

Erm.....they are both up in heaven...being a permanent fixture thereof? They are both pure and true, and shewith the handiwork of God? They are both cloaked in light and glory?

Any number of things mate really. An unbiased, simple reading without any added influence from extra biblical writings and that is the clear meaning of the passage I feel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[added later]
I missed this one.

These are reason why angels would be more fitting movers of stars than Newtonian forces.

[back to]
Groove Shack
"Judges 5:[20]...How would you fit in 3 there?"

Exactly the same. Figuratively meaning angels. Either the angels fought for Israel from heaven....or maybe just a general reference to the heavens bringing forth some kind of advantageous weather...which has poetically been attributed to the stars.

You are reading waaaaay too much into that one my new friend. Battlestars? Really?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, the most classical interpretation would be things like Saturn giving cold and unfortune and Moon wetness and slippery slopes and things like that to Sisera - stars giving morally relevant influences, as in astrology.

If Judges 5:20 had meant only angels, no stars, how would you explain "remaining in their order and courses" a k a "in their orbits"?

Here is what I found in Cornelius a Lapide on the matter, if you read Latin:

Commentaria in Librum Iudicum : Caput Quintum
http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080014741_C/1080014743_T3/1080014743_11.pdf


If you look at the right page, 143, and its left column, and go to middle of the longer paragraph which continues on the right column, you will find:

TERTIO Angelos qui ordinem et cursum stellarum moderantur, per eas contra Sisaram certasse.

If you don't know Latin, the context is how the words fit, and the third reason here cited translates as:

THIRDLY that Angels who moderate the order and courses of the stars fought against Sisera by them.

In other words, angels were using stars as "battlestars" to use a comparison from modern sci fi.

St Augustine - before and after 400.

St Thomas Aquinas - died 1274.

Cornelius a Lapide - Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen; 18 December 1567 – 12 March 1637 (he was a Flemish Jesuit and exegete).

Christ to St Augustine - 400 years. St Augustine to St Thomas - 800 years. St Thomas to Cornelius a Lapide - nearly 400 years more.

And the idea can be traced at least back to the Book of Henoch, canonic or not, which was extant c. 200 BC.

It's an idea which seems to be somewhat persistent, not just a passing fad.

Groove Shack
"If Judges 5:20 had meant only angels, no stars, how would you explain "remaining in their order and courses" a k a "in their orbits"?"

As I said...maybe just a general reference to the heavens bringing forth some kind of advantageous weather...which has poetically been attributed to the stars.

You say this is a persistent idea. Anyone in this group agree with you? Or anyone in general?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, in general we have the writer of the last classic and uncontroversial astronomic handbook which was geocentric : Riccioli.

He lists four options on how celestial bodies are moved : God moves them directly, God made them mechanistically apt to move, celestial bodies are alive, celestial bodies are not alive themselves but moved by angels.

The list of names he gives for this fourth option, which he considered the most common one, is VERY impressive.

So, yes. At least among those who are already in Heaven.

This group? Don't know.

Others at present living on Earth? Probably at least one or two fans of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien.

Here is my resumé on Riccioli, linking to the Latin original, if you are interested:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html


As to CSL, I already gave you references to the relevant works, Narniad and cosmic trilogy, by citing Ramandu and Oyarsas.

As to JRRT, the relevant part is in Silmarillion, a less known work, wherefore I link to my personal take on that chapter and especially his words to Naomi Micthison in an even less known Letter:

New blog on the kid : A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/a-relevant-quote-from-tolkien.html


This would probably have influenced more fans than just me.

Groove Shack
"God moves them directly"

This is an option for Riccioli but in your opinion it can't be considered?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It's an option in astrophysics, but hardly an option for Job 38:7 or an option for Baruch 3:34-35.

Groove Shack
But for Riccioli it was...?....or not?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Groove Shack , for Riccioli it was a theoretical option which he rejected as less probable.

His most probable option was his "most common one", namely angelic movers.

Why does this seem to sound some discord in your ears?

Groove Shack
So him saying it was less probable means he rejected it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, he didn't reject it as impossible, he only rejected it as less probable.

He even considers it on and off true for stars whenever their angels want to go down to enlighten a man or adore the Eucharist on a Catholic altar.

Of course those operations are more fitting for angels than moving stars, nevertheless when an angel who normally moves a star wants to do such a thing, he can just leave his star in the hands of God and God will take care of it in his absence.

But God doing so all the time for every star seems a bit awkward to fit with Job, Baruch and Judges.

Groove Shack
I'm gonna leave it there Hans-Georg......nice chat :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fine with me.

You see
this leaves me a very nice cue for doing the mirror of the FB debate on this blog post.

mardi 21 mars 2017

Continuing the Debate with RT


RT
Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs.

Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC.

I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them.

CT
Respectfully, "Call no man, ' father.'" There is no such thing as a church father, no such thing as ante-nicene fathers, etc.

What's more, we ignore these ancient authorities when it suits our own doctrines. Why, then, call upon them when they say something you agree with? Don't we regard them as mere men, as capable of error as the next guy?

DB
there is no gap indicated in the scriptures, only in the minds of those who have compromised their trust in God, having placed it in scientists.

RT
The early Church fathers apparently were unfamiliar with the KJ that refutes the YEC.

Scriptures in the KJ found in Gen 1:28 and 9:1 clearly support the Gap Theory of "replenishing the Earth."

Of course, many reject the KJ which is a rebuttal of the YEC traditions of men.

DB
Having a YEC theory should not be necessary because the theory that opposses of an old earth is not indicated in scripture, but rather in the science of man. That the earth is young is indicated both in scripture and in the earth itself.

RT
DB, you may have missed my comments above--so I'm posting them again:

"Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs.

Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC.

I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them."

DB
science does not prove the earth is old, it assumes the earth is old to fit their theories of uniformitarian processes.

that the earth is young is indicated in both the earth itself and in scripture.

catastrophism defeats the concept of uniformitarian processes.

nearly all of the geologic strata was laid down after the flood, caused by the flood.

all of the dating methods used by scientists are based on presupposed assumptions.

RT
And your view of the possible times Satan and the angels were created and the number of days afterwards that they quickly rebelled?

So you also don't believe the Universe is as vast as it is for the accuracy of the light years distance to the various stars and galaxies is accurate also?

CT
You're in denial, DB. It's not that you're denying "the truth," because I'm not claiming to know, absolutely, that what I believe regarding Genesis 1:2 is it. You're denying that somebody could believe in what you mistakenly refer to as the "gap theory" simply because the Bible says what it says. You keep demanding that I want some uniformitarian interpretation inserted into the Bible, despite my saying that uniformitarianism is bad science. You're denying that there is anything to discuss.

Given that, why not bow out of the discussion and let interested folks carry on? If, on the other hand, you're interested, then do more listening.

RT
Did you see my comments, CT?

"The early Church fathers apparently were unfamiliar with the KJ that refutes the YEC.

Scriptures in the KJ found in Gen 1:28 and 9:1 clearly support the Gap Theory of "replenishing the Earth."

Of course, many reject the KJ which is a rebuttal of the YEC traditions of men."

CT
I did see it, RT. I agree that the KJ translation allows for a "gap." Even better, though, is that the Hebrew makes a gap that much more likely.

DB
there is no gap and no need of a gap, isn't that obvious?

The supposed gap occured between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. It's not indicated, but that's where it is placed by those who compromise their trust in God.

CT
Who needs a gap? I don't. Nonetheless, it says, "And the earth became a waste and a desolation."

Golly, that's interesting, to me.

End of story.

DB
that's not what it says.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void,

RT
"BECAME a waste and a desolation AFTER the first flood to destroy Satan's kingdom on Earth."

God doesn't initially create this way in such a manner to cover the entire land of Earth with water--as He normally creates in a manner that is good and perfect.

DB
no form because the land was below the sea, and void of any life at the time.

You're inventing your own theology.

RT
I'm also following the KJ with "REPLENISH" which was used twice as it should to reflect the Gap Theory.

DB
there was no need to replenish before the fall.

CT
You're not reading the Hebrew, Don.

DB
God's perfect creation was intended to last forever.

CT I'm reading the Hebrew translated by Hebrew scholars.

"formless and void"

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void,

The primordial earth was submerged below sea level.

Gen. 1:9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

you have your pet theology, I have the actual Bible verses.

RT
But you don't use the KJ verses as I did that promote the Gap Theory and then tell me that you have actual Bible verses.

CT
Intended to last forever?! DB, you're in disagreement with even "standard" doctrine, now.

DB
as long as I am in agreement with the Bible, it doesn't matter what men profess to beleve. You are defending a theology rather than the Bible.

RT The KJV is an archaic translation of the Bible. It's concise and poetic, but not accurate.

We have newer translations because we have better knowledge of the ancient languages and cultures.

RT
I understand your point, DB

At least you are not a YEC and also using the KJ.

What's your view re the ice age? Did that really happen or is it more false science?

I presume you and I agree that Adam and Eve were real people and not figurative?

Enjoy your weekend.

DB
Why am I not a YEC?

The question should be "why is anyone an OEC?"

The ice age resulted from the excessive moisture after the flood, condensating into snow and ice in the polar regions spreading southward as the years progressed.

RT
I meant a YEC and the KJ are an oxymoron.

CT
OK, DB, then I'll say you're in disagreement with the Bible, irrespective of any man's doctrine, by saying that the perfect creation was intended to last forever. This is easily proved.

If Adam had never disobeyed, we may conclude that he would still be alive, and everything would still be in perfect order.

Thus, there would NOT YET be a need for a Messiah, whose blood has a purpose, yet we also know that "all things were created through and FOR him." You would have the Messiah waiting around, looking for something to do because he couldn't redeem an unfallen world.

In conclusion, it is proved that a perfect creation that would endure in perpetuity was not the intention. The intention was to elevate God's son, and thus God. Adam's disobedience was not only part of the plan, it was even unavoidable.

RT
Good points, CT

DB
You are correct, but Adam did sin and we do need our Savior. God has two wills, HIs perfect will and His permissive will. God permitted man to choose to sin and God's perfect creation was ruined.

If Adam had not sinned, he would not have died. That is stated clearly in scripture.

How very evil it would be of God to cause Adam to sin and creation to be ruined. No, sin was not part of God's perfect plan. That is heresy.

Where do you get ideas like that? Certainly not from the Bible.

HGL
RT, "Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth."

When? How?

"The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs."

You are forgetting chronology totally.

The scientific debate in 17th C was scientific on BOTH sides, especially the Geocentric one, and looked back at Church Fathers who were a closed group of Catholic Saints and writers who had lived and been canonised saints previous to the schism between saint Leo IX and Michael Caerularius in 1054.
And in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages up to this schism, there was no science for them to "fight against", since science especially as scientific research and debate only originated twice over after 1054, with the scholastics, and with Francis Bacon of Verulam plagiarising some scholastic themes : in Italy the scientific debate between Galileo and Riccioli was however not indebted to Bacon of Verulam, but directly continued scholastics. These are ANOTHER group of Catholic writers.

So "Church Fathers fighting against science" is a time paradox.

"Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC."

Science may have refuted some conjectures of YEC, there are others to replace them, and I am contributing.

"I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them."

Thank you!

"Respectfully, "Call no man, ' father.'" "

CT, Jesus didn't mean what you seem to think he meant.

"There is no such thing as a church father, no such thing as ante-nicene fathers, etc."

Yes, there are.

"What's more, we ignore these ancient authorities when it suits our own doctrines."

Catholic Church decided at Trent that we can't.

NOT when they agree with each other.

A Protestant who ignores Church Fathers when it suits his doctrines, he ignores them to his peril.

A Catholic who pretends to be a Catholic but ignores them so he can be Theistic Evolutionist or Old Earth Creationist as well as Heliocentric / Acentric is even an odious hypocrite.

"Why, then, call upon them when they say something you agree with?"

Because I volunteer to agree with them where they all agree, even if I didn't before.

Catholics at Trent and Orthodox at local but important councils of Jerusalem and Iasi condemned Protestantism over its rebellion against Church Fathers.

[As well as over a few other issues. Distinct from but involved in this rebellion.]

"Don't we regard them as mere men,"

No. Not I, I am a Catholic.

"as capable of error as the next guy?"

No. Not I, I am a Catholic.

CT, again:

"If Adam had never disobeyed, we may conclude that he would still be alive, and everything would still be in perfect order."

Yes.

"Thus, there would NOT YET be a need for a Messiah, whose blood has a purpose, yet we also know that "all things were created through and FOR him." You would have the Messiah waiting around, looking for something to do because he couldn't redeem an unfallen world."

God the Son would not have needed to come as Messiah.

"In conclusion, it is proved that a perfect creation that would endure in perpetuity was not the intention."

It was God's intention that this should be possible, except that Adam's free decision ruined that part.

"The intention was to elevate God's son, and thus God."

He was, since Adam was walking with Him in Eden.

"Adam's disobedience was not only part of the plan, it was even unavoidable."

It was avoidable to Adam.

Genesis 2:17 the same day (read thousand years) that you eat of the fruit, you shall die.

Mark 2:17 not the well, but the sick, need a physician.

DB As to "The ice age resulted from the excessive moisture after the flood, condensating into snow and ice in the polar regions spreading southward as the years progressed."

I don't think this was the whole story.

You see, higher levels of cosmic radiation seem to cause colder weather. The "little ice age" a few centuries ago (1300 to 1600 or to 1700?) is coinciding arguably with a higher level of cosmic radiation causing organic objects from those times to be dated too young except after calibration.

However, a high level of cosmic radiation just after Flood is required to cause an about 20 times higher production of carbon 14 than we have now, because without a faster production of carbon 14 for some centuries, we would after these millennia still have only about 45 % of the carbon 14 level we have today AND have had since about 500 BC, since carbon dates match well dated historical objects.

This means that the higher level of cosmic radiation could well have contributed to the ice age happening faster than Michael Oard thinks.

I think it started after Flood and ENDED around Tower of Babel, with the Younger Dryas carbon dating roughly to that time (I identifiy Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe).

CT
Not even Catholics agree with everything the ancient Christians believed.

You ignored the key point regarding the alleged intent on Yahweh's part to have His creation continue forever, perfectly. Since the universe was created for Yehoshua, whose purpose it is to redeem the creation from death, then the universe was created with the intent that it would need redemption from death.

If it were not so, then perhaps the only alternative is to say that Yehoshua didn't originally have the purpose of redeeming anything. All things were created through him and for him just because the Father wanted to do something nice for His son. I would say this is a tenuous doctrine. Or is there an alternative to it?

DB
the universe was not created for sin. Jesus was the Creator and necessity made Him our Savior.

HGL
CT, the main argument has been answered by DB, only:

"Not even Catholics agree with everything the ancient Christians believed."

Supposing your mean Catholics what we universally believe and ancient Christians what they universally believed, so it is not just a matter of diverse opinions now and then, or of picking one Catholic from then and one from now and see where they disagree in free matters and say Catholics have contradicted each other, would you mind giving an example?

DB
Doctrines should be founded in scripture, not the opinions of men, even if the are priests.

The Catholics wanted the Bible printed only in Latin, so that the common people could not decide for themselves, what the Bible teaches us.

When the Bible was translated into English and the other modern languages, the authority left the church and returned to it's rightfull place, the Bible.

HGL
"Doctrines should be founded in scripture, not the opinions of men, even if the are priests."

Scripture or apostolic tradition.

When priests differ, they may singly be wrong, but not all of them. When the Church Fathers all agree, they must be right, since that is involved in God's promise to His Church.

"The Catholics wanted the Bible printed only in Latin, so that the common people could not decide for themselves, what the Bible teaches us."

Historic factoid and has very little to do with the facts on periods when it can even be debated whether the Church was Catholic or pre-Protestant.

"When the Bible was translated into English and the other modern languages, the authority left the church and returned to it's rightfull place, the Bible."

Totally unbiblical, since the Bible doesn't call the Bible, but the Church Pillar and Ground of Truth. 2 Tim 3:15, sorry, meant 1 Tim 3:15.

As for 2 Tim, St Paul is speaking to a man whom he has chosen to be a bishop, a very early Church Father. He is not adressing these same words to each and every layman. And he is talking to one who had been not just reading the Actual Text of Moses and the Prophets but who had had Rabbinic instruction as to their meaning.

Under the Old Testament, it was obviously true that where Hillel and Shammai differed, they might each be wrong, but when all agreed, they had to be right.

Dialogue with a Pre-Adamist (Not a Pre-Adamite, I think)


Reminder,
still under

Dave Bestul
Mark 10:6-12New International Version (NIV)

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Question: Does this confirm that Jesus taught a young earth? If Adam and Eve were created at the BEGINNING of creation, doesn't that pretty much kill the gap theory? Thanks.

And now first
the answer (17 mars, 19:39) to that which serves as quasi status to this subthread, and then the comments directed at that one:

David Caldarola
This is a common interpretation error. God "created" humans, male and female. He "formed" Adam, and "made" Eve. Adam and Eve are not the first people created, they are the first of the "chosen people." Adam was, in essence, the first high priest and Eden was the holy of holies where the high priest and God communicated to each other. Eve was "made" from the flesh and bones of Adam, (DNA) to establish a pure family line for the chosen people who are called "a priestly people." They were intended to be a race of priests who would minister the laws, precepts, injunctions, and ceremonial rites to the world congregation. At least, this was what God had intended.

Rohn Timm
So are you YEC or OEC?

Stephen Mitchell
This is nonsense, David.

David Caldarola
Rohn Timm - I am YEC, though I don't believe one has to take everything the bible says literally. One has to consider the time that has elapsed, the people the words were said to, their culture, their language, the translator problems, etc.

Stephen Mitchell - It is all there, Stephen. But you are free to pick and chose what you wish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" Adam and Eve are not the first people created,"

The people before Adam and Eve, if any : were they unfallen or fallen?

If fallen, how come the fall of mankind came with Adam?

Even, how come Adam could be unfallen himself?

If unfallen, are they elves who withdrew from Earth after Adam's fall, not necessarily immediately?

If unfallen and living with us, why are they not superior to us, how do we not see immortals?

Adam's sin was transmitted by propagation, not by example.

This means, if they had been unfallen up to the time of Adam, they would have remained so.

"though I don't believe one has to take everything the bible says literally."

Oh, one has to.

"One has to consider the time that has elapsed"

Between when and when?

Between events and text? I rely on tradition, even oral one, as a faithful means of tradition.

Or between text and us? Up to us to learn the expressions of the then time, and none of them are absent from our culture, though some are not predominant. "he knew his wife" is for instance intelligible to us, even if that is not the most usual way of expressing the fact.

"the people the words were said to, their culture, their language,"

Yes, what about them?

"the translator problems, etc."

What about these?

David Caldarola
Hans-Georg Lundahl _ It would be easier if you had asked one question at a time. So I will start with the first post. The people outside of the garden, the "male and females he created" were unfallen because they had no laws to disobey. Even if they did not have the fullest measure of grace because they were not directly in the garden with Adam, the presence of grace, as well as the absence of any evil influence - as well as any threats or needs to survive - was sufficient as they "waited" for the law and ceremonies to come from Adam and that Holy of Holies called Eden. (I do not say they were told to "wait" though it is possible that the spirit inferred this to them.)

Now comes the sin of Adam and Eve. As I mentioned in a post elsewhere, so I'll repeat it here, Hans, Adam and Eve were NOT cast out of the garden. It was God who left Eden because he cannot have sin in his presence. It would be like you are living in an immaculately kept up house with the most beautiful woman on Earth. If your love breaks down and she cats you out of the house - even if you move to a magnificent palatial estate, you still feel cast out and punished because that beautiful woman and the "love-nest" you had is separated from you. But if she walks out of that "love-nest" and you remain, you still feel "cast out" of her life and your immaculately kept nest deteriorates. The effect is the same.

Notice in Gen: 4-16 Cain leaves and lives in the east side of Eden. Eden is still there. But God is not. Without his presence to keep the garden pristine, it becomes like any other piece of land acreage - subjected to weeds, drought, erosion, etc. (This is what God means when he told Adam he would have to "work" the land - without His presence, it does not produce life; fruits, grains, flowers, etc., instantly and automatically.) But that now "normal" land was once Eden. This is vital to understand what you asked. How does this affect, or cause all those outside of the Genesis narrative to become fallen?

God's withdrawal from Eden takes His grace and presence with Him. (That abundant grace Paul spoke of - "without which, no man can see God.") The blessed state the entire world was in, is now also subject to decay, its people and animals will go hungry - hunt each other for food - and those males and females will work the Earth by the sweat of their brows, bear their children in pain and suffering, etc., and sin since they don't have the abundance of grace necessary to stay unfallen. This is how they and we share in the sin of Adam and Eve. Their sin caused the withdrawal of God and his sanctifying grace which keeps the world pristine and sinless. Once this happened, everyone on Earth was afflicted. We, therefore, do not necessarily share in the "sin" of Adam and Eve, we share in the results it caused.

Without this abundant grace, sin among people, even yet without the law, was inevitable. (Greed, selfishness, cruelty, etc., for these are "graceless" qualities.) But note that none of this would have happened if Adam and Eve were left to their own devices and choices - it took the supernatural evil influence of Satan to derail this paradise. If there were no Satan and his interference, We would all still be in Paradise and the garden of Eden would still be the temple of God from which the priestly people administer to the world congregation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did I get this right : the unfallen people became fallen because God withdrew from Garden of Eden?

David Caldarola
Hans-Georg Lundahl - You are falling into semantics here. We call Satan and his ilk "fallen" because they physically "fell" from heaven. Adam and Eve "fell" from grace when they sinned. The "males and females He created" fell out of grace because that abundant grace was no longer available. Their "fall" was inevitable. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the "fall" of Adam and Eve, and the subsequent "fall" by mankind was in the same context as Satan's.

One of the concepts of scripture that is often lost in the English translations is that God and sinners are not "seeing eye to eye." This eye to eye motif is central to scriptures. When Jacob and Esau had their reconciliation, the entire passage, if more accurately translated from the Hebrew, highlights this idea. Even when Moses was allowed to see God, he could only see him from behind. When we go to heaven, we will be purged of all sin and blame, and will receive again that abundant sanctifying grace that will make it possible for us to be fully reconciled with God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not confusing a fall from both grace and redeemability with a fall from grace.

God is everywhere and His grace did not depend on His "physical presence in Eden", rather, that manifestation of His was apppropriate for the initial state of grace, since Adam and Eve were able to differentiate between God's spiritual presence, that of angels and that of deciving fallen angels, should these speak directly as spirits (which is why Satan used a serpent to talk to Eve, I suppose).

So, apart from fact that your reading is not supported by Tradition, it is not so very coherent theologically either.

Stephen Mitchell
This whole conversation has drifted into the absurd.

David Caldarola
Hans-Georg Lundahl - It is perfectly coherent. You simply are not capable of discerning it. Look at your example; "... since Adam and Eve were able to differentiate between God's spiritual presence, that of angels and that of deceiving fallen angels, should these speak directly as spirits (which is why Satan used a serpent to talk to Eve, (I suppose.)"

This is incoherent. You are saying that Adam and Eve could differentiate between, etc., - and then you suppose they weren't suspicious of a serpent that could talk to them? Now, you are correct that my explanation is not supported by Tradition. But this "tradition" you quote is wholly debatable. Are you talking Catholic Tradition or Protestant Tradition? If Protestant, does that include Jehovah's Witness and Mormon Tradition? By tradition, you mean the general consensus of those denominations you agree with.

Look at it this way, and I am not bragging - I have given you a sound and correct explanation of things and you cannot understand it. Why? I'll tell you, and believe me this is not to be offensive in any way. What I have said was given to me, not to you. I do not profess to be a spiritualist, a prophet, or a theologian. In fact, I have been a very poor Christian who has struggled mightily with my meager faith. And I believe this is why God gave me some insights - perceptions - into these things. Not because I am especially deserving or "holier-than-thou," but because I was such a wreck in life that He knew I needed such clarification more than others.

I recall debating things with a former friend of mine who wouldn't accept a word I said - no matter how much documentation, audio visual material, or biblical references I provided. I was fuming inside at his bullheadedness. I remember talking a walk in the middle of the night and chatting with the Lord about this. To make a long story short, it was "given" to me that I couldn't convince my friend of anything because he was not ready to receive it... that is why the Lord said over and over again... "I gave it to you."

Oddly enough, my friend James, must have understood this because when I was leaving his house in a bit of a huff, he said, "David, don't take this too hard... maybe I'm just not ready for this - don't cast your pearls before the swine." James was not ready to receive what I demonstrated to him, even with a ton of material from the "experts." You and Stephen Mitchell who commented above, are not ready to receive it. But I have told you these things because the "tradition" that scripture is self-interpreting is false. You will glean from scriptures the minimum necessary for your Christian character, mission, and hopefully eventual salvation.

But you will be banging your head against the spiritual wall till the day you die trying to figure out the "spirit" of scripture with sola-scriptura. "He came into the world, and the world knew him not." I have given you what He gave me, and you didn't recognize it. There is not point to go further. Just keep studying and praying and being as good a Christian as you know how, and you will be fine. Go in peace.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Answering points one by one, will be giving it as "dialogue"]

David Caldarola
Look at your example; "... since Adam and Eve were able to differentiate between God's spiritual presence, that of angels and that of deceiving fallen angels, should these speak directly as spirits (which is why Satan used a serpent to talk to Eve, (I suppose.)"

This is incoherent. You are saying that Adam and Eve could differentiate between, etc., - and then you suppose they weren't suspicious of a serpent that could talk to them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
One possibility is that animals were given a possibility to talk to man before the fall.

Another is that they were still fairly naive and she (not Adam) thought the serpent was unusually bright.

Adam would probably have been suspicious on the exact ground you mentioned, he had named the serpent.

David Caldarola
Now, you are correct that my explanation is not supported by Tradition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
THanks for the admission.

David Caldarola
But this "tradition" you quote is wholly debatable. Are you talking Catholic Tradition or Protestant Tradition? If Protestant, does that include Jehovah's Witness and Mormon Tradition? By tradition, you mean the general consensus of those denominations you agree with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mainly Catholic tradition. I am a Catholic. We do however use "witness of heretics" in apologetics, meaning that if for instance Nestorians and Monophysites agree here, this means the tradition had an antiquity prior to mid or end of 5th C. AD.

And if Jewish Tradition agrees, this means the tradition has an antiquity prior to Our Lord.

And that means, if it had been what He called "traditions of men" in the bad sense, He would have had an opportunity to correct it.

David Caldarola
Look at it this way, and I am not bragging - I have given you a sound and correct explanation of things and you cannot understand it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If by correct or sound you mean simply coherent within itself, I agree.

I only do not agree it is coherent with other theological data.

And I do not agree I didn't understand it.

David Caldarola
Why? I'll tell you, and believe me this is not to be offensive in any way. What I have said was given to me, not to you. I do not profess to be a spiritualist, a prophet, or a theologian. In fact, I have been a very poor Christian who has struggled mightily with my meager faith. And I believe this is why God gave me some insights - perceptions - into these things. Not because I am especially deserving or "holier-than-thou," but because I was such a wreck in life that He knew I needed such clarification more than others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In that case, God might have given you occasiuon to get temporary false explanations while you couldn't understand the true ones.

And you should be able to sustain your gift in debate, if you think it is a true one.

David Caldarola
I recall debating things with a former friend of mine who wouldn't accept a word I said - no matter how much documentation, audio visual material, or biblical references I provided.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You haven't provided all that many to me.

And instead of giving me Tradition, you have half and half flouted the criterium.

David Caldarola
I was fuming inside at his bullheadedness. I remember talking a walk in the middle of the night and chatting with the Lord about this. To make a long story short, it was "given" to me that I couldn't convince my friend of anything because he was not ready to receive it... that is why the Lord said over and over again... "I gave it to you."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
We each have a right to hope when a voice of God speaks in our imagination that God is really taking care of it.

I don't think we have a right to hope, if it is theoretic material, to be right even if we cannot well defend it.

David Caldarola
But I have told you these things because the "tradition" that scripture is self-interpreting is false. You will glean from scriptures the minimum necessary for your Christian character, mission, and hopefully eventual salvation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you mean the tradition that Scripture is self explanatory in what concerns our salvation, it is indeed false, at least as far as those are concerned who decieve themselves.

In the general gist of Biblical History, most is self explanatory as in any given historic text.

Not because Protestants have a false tradition about Scripture being self explanatory in salvific matters, but because that is how the Church Fathers took it.

David Caldarola
But you will be banging your head against the spiritual wall till the day you die trying to figure out the "spirit" of scripture with sola-scriptura.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not even into Sola Scriptura, it was condemned by the Council of Trent.

I am however into Tota Scriptura.

No single datum of Scripture is false.

As for your version, if I recall it correctly (it is a debate which has taken us days, so I am speaking of what I read yesterday or last week), you gave data which are not reconcileable with sound Catholic theology as you gave them.

End of
my dialogued one post answer.

David Caldarola
Hans-Georg Lundahl - There are some good points in your reply. But, "One possibility is that animals were given a possibility to talk to man before the fall," was not one of them. This is really stretching into near fantasy to argue a point. Secondly, the comment on Tota Scriptura has a problem. What you are saying is that if one takes scriptures in its totality, it is inerrant and infallible. This may very well be true, but it is highly debatable that any single person on earth has interpreted this totality in a totally correct manner.

Even the early church fathers rejected Paul's letter to the Hebrews, and promoted the Gospel according to Thomas. We are still stuck with the reality that the Bible is a translation of a translation of ancient languages and foreign cultures. There is an ever repeating cycle employed here. We try to take the bible literally, and we end up with some apparent contradictions and many questions. So, we interpret. And for awhile, the interpretations seem to make sense, but then endless debates and arguments occur, along with more questions and apparent conflicts, so we try going back to the literalist approach. (Rinse and repeat.)

Now, I am also Catholic. But I do not agree with everything the catechism teaches. Why? Because every objective truth that is revealed to man is vulnerable to his own subjectivity. (Grasp, understanding, interpretation.) It's like when you read a passage in the bible you have read a hundred times before, and have heard referenced a hundred times by scholars, and then suddenly - poof - a light goes on and you perceive of that passage in a whole new light. The problem with Tota Scriptura is that it presumes that certainly everything should have been perceived and commented on by now.

But there is one issue that both the Catholic and Protestant interpretations believe in that is incorrect. But I do not have the authority to explain it - I am not a priest or theologian. But to hopefully gain a better grasp of what we are talking about, what part of my initial explanation above, ( March 18 at 9:27am) runs counter to scriptures?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Again, dialoguing my answer:

David Caldarola
Secondly, the comment on Tota Scriptura has a problem. What you are saying is that if one takes scriptures in its totality, it is inerrant and infallible. This may very well be true, but it is highly debatable that any single person on earth has interpreted this totality in a totally correct manner.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, my comment does NOT have that problem.

I am NOT saying that.

I am saying that every single detail of Scripture is inerrant.

And there are lots of people who actually have looked correctly at details of Scripture.

David Caldarola
Even the early church fathers rejected Paul's letter to the Hebrews, and promoted the Gospel according to Thomas.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Simply false, if by "the early Church Fathers" you mean all of them. Some may have rejected Hebrews, and none can have promoted the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

If any promoted the Childhood Gospel of St Thomas, that is another matter.

Note very well, by Church Fathers I mean canonised saints who lived within the Church called Catholic and who are recognised by the Catholic Church as Church Fathers. I do not mean Tertullian who died outside the Church or Origen who is not a canonised Saint.

I do mean for instance, among early ones, Sts Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenee of Lyons, and a few more.

David Caldarola
We are still stuck with the reality that the Bible is a translation of a translation of ancient languages and foreign cultures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not if you know Greek, in that case only OT is a translation, NT is original text.

As to ancient and foreign languages and cultures, what is the exact problem? What exact passage is problematical according to some translation problem to you?

David Caldarola
There is an ever repeating cycle employed here. We try to take the bible literally, and we end up with some apparent contradictions and many questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Key word "apparent".

David Caldarola
So, we interpret.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No problem, as long as literal sense is respected.

David Caldarola
And for awhile, the interpretations seem to make sense, but then endless debates and arguments occur

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And the Church which it belongs to to interpret Scripture is able to keep Her head through these. So are to some degree debaters like myself who are careful to believe with the Church.

David Caldarola
along with more questions and apparent conflicts, so we try going back to the literalist approach. (Rinse and repeat.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
This supposes that the literalist approach was left to the side in the first place when interpreting. It shouldn't (there are other levels of interpretation, allegoric, moral and anagogic, but these involve topics other than the strict history depicted in the text and so do not concern us).

David Caldarola
Now, I am also Catholic. But I do not agree with everything the catechism teaches.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If it is the infamous CCC, no problem. Try Baltimore Catechisms or Catechism of Pope St Pius X.

David Caldarola
Why? Because every objective truth that is revealed to man is vulnerable to his own subjectivity. (Grasp, understanding, interpretation.) It's like when you read a passage in the bible you have read a hundred times before, and have heard referenced a hundred times by scholars, and then suddenly - poof - a light goes on and you perceive of that passage in a whole new light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Happens, but when genuine does NOT discredit what the text had literally said before that.

When I came up with Tower of Babel being a rocket about a year ago, I checked that skyscraper had not been the consensus of all fathers, and while it sheds a new light on Nimrod's venture and allows the city in which it occurred (and the building of which was left off, which is not said about the tower!) to be Göbekli Tepe, it does not contradict anything the text had literally said.

David Caldarola
The problem with Tota Scriptura is that it presumes that certainly everything should have been perceived and commented on by now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not at all.

Tota Scriptura is a parallel to the scientific Tota Empiria - but no scientist pretends all empirical fact has already been seized and commented on.

David Caldarola
But there is one issue that both the Catholic and Protestant interpretations believe in that is incorrect. But I do not have the authority to explain it - I am not a priest or theologian. But to hopefully gain a better grasp of what we are talking about, what part of my initial explanation above, ( March 18 at 9:27am) runs counter to scriptures?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
One single issue : people descending from Adam before his fall or even being previous to Adam and getting the original sin, not because Adam sired them in an already sinful state, but because God withdrew from Eden.

What you considered as a description of what happened to sinless men is rather a description of what happens to a country when the Eucharist is withdrawn.

People like Shakespear would have been innocent of the Reformation, but unless consciously resisting, the sheer lack of Eucharist and Confession was taking its toll in apostasies.

End of
my second dialogued one post answer.

jeudi 16 mars 2017

On Collective Infallibility of Church Fathers


On Mark 10:6 · On Collective Infallibility of Church Fathers

Note, DB below is not Dave Bestul, Dave Bestul is in an update marked Dave Bestul.

DB
anywhere the Bible is silent, we too should remain silent. The Bible is our absolute authority, not science and not personal opinion either.

HGL
Not having absolute authority does not equal not having a reasonable opinion - especially if backed by Church Fathers.

DB
are these "church fathers" mortal fallible men?

HGL
singly, yes

collectively they are the voice of the Church of Christ, whom He promised His assistance

DB
Don't equate the opinions of men to the authority of the Bible. The Bible will be diminished and the men exalted.

HGL
Not if the Bible itself exalts their authority.

Except in their individual failures, where they differ from each other.

DB
God has revealed the absolute unchanging truth to man. The Bible must remain the exalted singular authority.

HGL
With Tradition, since that is how Biblically God has revealed His unchanging truth.

Where did St Paul know the names Jannes and Mambres from?

DB
men change their minds, God remains constant and absolute. Sola scripture, the Bible alone is our authrority.

HGL
St Paul did not seem to think that:
2 Timothy 3:8
Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

This is the ONE reference to them, meaning he had their names from tradition, meaning he trusted tradition.

DB
men diminish the authority of the Bible.

HGL
Not those who exalt it, like the Church Fathers do.

The men who had transmitted the names of Jannes and Mambres to St Paul did not diminish the authority of Exodus.

DB
God's Holy Word never changes. Men change their interpretations frequently and often disagree.

HGL
When Church Fathers change or disagree, they are not binding, when they agree, they are not changing and when they are not changing, they speak from the Revelation God gave His Church. THEN they are binding.

DB
As long as men remain on this earth, they are fallen and sinful, even if they are forgiven and serve in the church, men are fallible and have no authority equal to God's Word, the Bible.

are the "church fathers" men subject to sin?

we both know the answer to that question.

HGL
No, when a man is forgiven he is not sinful.

The fallibility of man as a man is also diminished when he serves in the true Church which Christ founded.

Taken together they are infallible, if not inerrant individually.

You agree that certain men serving God were not just infallible together but even inerrant individually.

Was St Paul subject to sin?

When a man is forgiven, he is NOT subject to sin.

DB
Can the Pope change church doctrine to suit the culture of today?

HGL
If a Pope does an attempt to that, he proves he is not Pope, since he goes against the collected Church Fathers.

DB
This is why men should not have total authority in the church.

HGL
No man has "total" authority in the Church, the check against "total" power even of the pope is if he is not Catholic, he is not Pope, and has no power under God.

DB
The Pope is the father of the church, for the Catholics.

no man has the authority to change what God has stated in the Bible.

HGL
The Pope is A, not THE father of the Church, at present, though the most important one.

"Holy Father" adressed to a live person is not the same as "Church Father" said about people who have died and whose holiness God has attested by miracles.

"no man has the authority to change what God has stated in the Bible."

Nor what the Church Fathers collectively said about it.

This one we agree on.

[The former, and I agree on one more like to it, that is.]

DB
Having the authoriry to reveal a new interpretation of God's Word is equating that new interpretation as equal to God's Word.

HGL
The problem with your point is that NEW is precisely what Patristic interpretation is NOT.

The Church Fathers are there to check we stay with an OLD one.

DB
This is the problem we are now having with SCOTUS and our Constitution. Men have the ability to re-interpret what the Constitution states.

HGL
Because God did not promise infallibility to the state power.

DB
we do not agree

HGL
We do agree no one has the power to add a new interpretation or change what God has revealed.

DB
The church has no authority, the church fathers have no authority, the only authority is the Word of God, sola scriptura.

HGL
Find that theory in the Bible ...

DB
HGL all men are fallible.

HGL
Individually, does not make the Church or the writers of the Bible fallible.

Plus you forgot to support your allegation FROM the Bible.

DB
HGL John 17:17 (KJV)
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

HGL
His prayer was for the first twelve bishops, the first "Church Fathers".

DB
Are you a sinner like myself?

are the "church fathers" sinners like us?

HGL
I don't know if either of us is a sinner or is justified right now.

I do know that most Bible writers and Church Fathers were justified when writing what they did, and this means they are reliable.

DB
we are forgiven sinners, but we remain sinners.

HGL
When forgiven, we do NOT remain sinners.

DB
This is why men do not have the authority to determine church doctrine.

HGL
Except those to whom God has given such authority.

He who heareth you heareth me.

DB
HGL Did the Apostle Paul call himself the "Chief of sinners" ?

was this after Paul's conversion?

HGL
Plus your idea undermines that Bible writers could "determine doctrine".

The Apostle Paul was perhaps speaking of his former life.

And he DID determine, under God, doctrine.

DB
If Paul remained a sinner, so do we.

HGL
If he spoke of his former life, he did not say he remained a sinner.

DB
the writers only held the pens, God instructed them what to write.

HGL
Not always verbally, it was so at Patmos as in Sinai, but St Luke did research in a human way, and Moses arguably did so for Genesis too.

That said, God controlled their words providentially, so they contained no error.

And has the same power over collectivity of Church Fathers.

DB
Romans 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

HGL
There he is speaking of the law of sin in the members, it is not making him a sinner, since he is not consenting "I hate what I do".

DB
Paul confessed that sin continued in his life. Are you superior to Paul?

HGL
Paul confessed that sin continued physically, which is the sin in the members.

He did not confess sin continued voluntarily which would have made him a sinner.

BBL

Why?
Taking a pause, posting here first. He was posting at a breathtaking pace, his typing speed and shortness is superior to mine. Plus, I took time to copy paste too.

It pays off, I got one more to reply to (in more than one post, so did I above, I simplified so as to note new post only with change of speaker), and so could give an answer which I could post to finish this.

DB
Hans, the Bible is a closed text, there are no remaining revelations, not from prophecy nor from men.

what "members" would that be ?

Romans 7:18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.

ascribing to men the authority to determine doctrine is heresy and must be denied. The Bible alone is our sole authority.

HGL
And the Bible was written by men.

You tried to solve the problem by these just holding the pen.

This happened, but was not the general case.

St Luke said he did research, which means he acted as a human writer.

This means God can chose to prevent a human writer from error, otherwise St Luke's Gospel would not be a Gospel.

And this in turn means:

  • God can also prevent Popes from error when they teach ex cathedra;
  • God can also prevent Church Fathers from making the same errors.


Meaning, when a Pope speaks ex cathedra, he can be trusted because of God's promise, when Church Fathers all agree, they can be trusted because of God's promise.

"the Bible is a closed text, there are no remaining revelations, not from prophecy nor from men."

The Church Fathers are not a post-Biblical revelation.

"Romans 7:18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature."

But good does dwell in his redeemed person, by grace.

CT
The Bible is in no way a closed text. You're asking only the question of whether something can be added to it, ignoring the possibility of somebody's taking something away.

We no longer have the book of Enoch. Our non-Catholic Bibles no longer include the Apocrypha. Even centuries ago, the man called Justin Martyr demonstrated how Jews had removed verses from the Bible that pointed to Yehoshua's being the Messiah. Those verses are still removed from most Bibles. There's a verse in 1 John that was added only 500 years ago. And so on.

I'm not arguing that these changes are right, but we sound so arrogant when we say we can know everything, and that we have only correct doctrines -- nothing colored by man. I bet you do hold to some of man's doctrines, in fact. I bet we all do.

HGL
By closed I mean that the Revelation is closed.

The Catholic Church could (but should not on astronomical grounds, the year is not 360 or 364 days long) take the book of Enoch because already accepted by a schismatic part Church, the Ethiopian one, and say it is from now on canon.

The Catholic Church could similarily add III and IV Maccabees as accepted by Romanians or I Ezra as accepted by Russians.

But ONLY because these texts have been received as having been written before the Old Testament was finally over (IV Maccabees probably in a sense after, but Josephus, credited as its author, was born before Temple went down).

As to taking away, that is not licit.

The Reformers taking away I and II Maccabees, Baruch and a few more were rebels against the Church, not Churchmen.

Trent has defined that I and II Maccabees can't be taken away.

Also (Trent or elsewhere or basic catechism) a book written now could not be a new part of the canon, nor a book written during Old Testament era, but never accepted by any Christian community as part of OT canon.

CT
Given that the Roman religion allows changes to doctrine, it cannot be said that it isn't plastic, regarding revelation. The Roman religion changed the sabbath to Sunday, they outlawed the practice of the Passover festival, etc. And it has been explicitly stated that the Roman pontiff has these powers -- that he acts as God, on earth.

Further evidence is in Vatican II and the liberality that led up to it, which caused a split among many Catholics. Mr. Bergoglio is dividing Catholics still further.

HGL
"Given that the Roman religion allows changes to doctrine, it cannot be said that it isn't plastic, regarding revelation."

False.

"The Roman religion changed the sabbath to Sunday,"

The Apostles did that.

"they outlawed the practice of the Passover festival, etc."

According to Jewish calendar, since the Easter of Resurrection takes precedence and is calculated according to Roman Calendar.

"And it has been explicitly stated that the Roman pontiff has these powers -- that he acts as God, on earth."

That he acts as God's VICAR on Earth and therefore cannot change, just define doctrine.

"Further evidence is in Vatican II and the liberality that led up to it, which caused a split among many Catholics. Mr. Bergoglio is dividing Catholics still further."

That would have been evidence, if it had been Catholic.

Vatican II and Bergoglio is not a Catholic Council, not a Catholic Pope.

CT
The outlawing of the sabbath and the Passover festival were one of the first acts of Constantine after he asserted his authority over Christianity in the Council of Nicaea.

HGL
Constantine had not "asserted his authority over Christianity in the Council of Nicea" and what he did was codify the Christian celebrations, like the Sunday and Christian Easter. He made sure Christians could take time off for doing these things.

CT
Easter is in no way "Christian." And the Passover festival is about as Christian a festival as one could imagine. Both the sabbath and the Passover were made illegal, by Constantine.

HGL
// Easter is in no way "Christian." //

Easter is Christian because it is about the Resurrection of Christ.

It has sometimes shared and sometimes not shared date with Passover.

// And the Passover festival is about as Christian a festival as one could imagine. //

In the exact sense of Easter, as mentioned above.

// Both the sabbath and the Passover were made illegal, by Constantine. //

Where do you see any act banning Jews from keeping the sabbath in his reign?

Other "statuses"
under the Mark 10:6 one (functioning to subthreads as status of Dave Bestul to whole thread):

I
DB
the "gap theory" is an attempt to make scripture conform to man's science. Don't do that!

HGL
I am NOT advocating the gap theory, I am opposing it.

DB
Hans-Georg Lundahl this is Dave's post, and he asked the question.

CT
You're still wrong, [DB]. I've said several times, now, that I believe in what you call the "gap theory" simply because it says "And the earth became a waste and desolation," to which Yahweh speaks explicitly, saying that it wasn't created that way.

Once more, the "gap" could have been two minutes, for all I care. I have no need for billions or millions or thousands or even hundreds of years. All I want is the truth.

HGL
OK, that kind of gap theory, the Catholic theology can accept.

The Earth became desolate when Satan fell down on it after falling from heaven, not dogma, but certainly acceptable doctrine.

II

DB
ascribing to men the authority to determine doctrine is heresy and must be denied. The Bible alone is our sole authority.

RT
Which is why the Gap Theory is correct and the Traditions of men are incorrect.

HGL
In what Church Father do you find it said that anything in Genesis implies gap theory?

RT
Who cares what a Church father imagined that he passed of when others were forbidden to have a Bible under penalty of death.

HGL
I think you are confusing era of Church Fathers (up to AD 1000, about) with era of Lollard persecution in England (1401 to after 1611, the last victims being Baptists burned as heretics by Anglican James I).

I also think you are confusing the question with what A single Church Father "imagined" (and St Augustine did perhaps imagine wrongly about people across Atlantic in one place) with the question of ALL THE Church Fathers being wrong.

RT
I wasn't certain WHICH Christian fathers you were alluding to...besides most of them believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. A fallacy continued until Galileo managed to confront...but was forced to keep quiet so an not to expose the erroneous beliefs of the Church fathers.

Now these same people insist upon a YEC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I wasn't certain WHICH Christian fathers you were alluding to"

I am speaking fairly clearly, not just alluding, to all of them.

If I say all of them were against gap theory, that is a fair guess.

Up to you to show there was one exception, I can't say in advance which one.

"besides most of them believed the Sun revolved around the Earth."

Which is supported by both good philosophy and by Scriptural proof like Joshua's adressing the miraculous words to sun and to moon, not to Earth to get it stop turning.

"A fallacy continued until Galileo managed to confront"

Not a fallacy and Galileo did not do much confronting.

"but was forced to keep quiet"

He could also have decided to be stubborn and burn on a stake, as Bruno had burned. Note, Bruno was hardly a Biblical Christian.

"so an not to expose the erroneous beliefs of the Church fathers."

Or pretend to do so and deceive the ignorant or some of them.

"Now these same people insist upon a YEC."

Yes, thank you very much, and therefore so do I. Whether you speak of the Church Fathers or of Pope Urban VIII obeying them.

III
CT
It should be noted, though, that the Jews did make revisions to the Masoretic Text based on anti-Christian sentiment. That's why it can be said that even the KJV has adulterations. Nonetheless, I still think it's still one of the best.

MJ
Not. It was translated from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac-Chaldean. There is no anti-Christian to it. Where ever you got that info, is incorrect.

The Hebrew people did not expect the Messiah to be a humble Sheppard, they expected Him to come with the clouds of the Heavenly Hosts, forgetting Isaiah 53.

Still, has nothing to do with translated, from one language, to another.

CT
The information I provided is accurate. Look up the history of the Masoretic Text. It has adulterations, as does any Bible that uses it, which is just about all of them, save those that complement their translations with the Septuagint.

HGL
MJ, what you call "original Hebrew" simply is Masoretic text.

There were translations from "original Hebrew" before that one : Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac-Chaldean.

Where Masoretic (the "original Hebrew" for Reformers) differs from Septuagint or Vulgate, we can suspect that Masoretic was altered by Jews having anti-Christian sentiment.

IV
RT
(changing subject on a previous subthread)

Isn't our conversation what makes the study of theology stimulating? There's different views of what happened back then. We know something happened and Adam and Eve stumbled and fell, per se. The issue was over trust.

We are now in a transition process until Jesus returns to take over the Satanic Governments of this World.

So, we wait and contemplate Scriptural topics. I don't consider the YEC or OEC views as salvation issues and I don't doubt the faith or sincerity of either group.

RS
It occurred to me later on that the Bible does not tell us how much time elapsed between the first week and the Fall.

RT
True, NO TIME mentioned at all except "week" and the "24 hr days."

Dave Bestul
[RS], it does say that Adam lived 930 years and died. The fall occurred in his lifetime obviously.

RT
Before they fell and we're kicked out of the Garden.

Dave Bestul
So are you saying Adam lived more than 930 years?

Or are you positing that those years are not equal units, which wouldn't make any sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Bible indeed does not say exactly how much time.

Some traditions say that between Eve sinning and Adam falling, Adam fasted for 39 or 40 days (forget which) before finally succumbing.

We can also hope there had been some time with God in the garden before Eve fell, but not VERY long, they had been ordered to fill the Earth, were not disobedient before the fall, and yet the first conception seemingly is that of Cain after the fall. So, it can hardly have been years either.

CT
I've wondered about Cain's being the first. It's not stated, explicitly, although it does read that way. One of the questions that arises is, who is this wife, he took, when he went to the Land of Wandering?

RT
There were multiple children from Adam and Eve and eventually, over time, he married a distant releative.

HGL
If Cain were not the first, why Genesis 4:[1]?

And Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God.

Also, if there had been children in paradise before the fall, why is there no story of how they reacted to their parents' fall?

Also, if they had been there and remained unfallen, where did that unfallen humanity go?

The normal answer to Cain's wife is his sister.

"There were multiple children from Adam and Eve and eventually, over time, he married a distant releative."

Distant?

The most distant relative would have been a sister or a niece or a grandniece.

CT
Right, like I said, the way it reads is that Cain was the first. It just doesn't say so, explicitly. Eve may have been saying that she believed she was now having "a man, even God's salvation" who would fulfill the promise of crushing the serpent's head. That says nothing of having children before the prophecy was given; before their disobedience.

HGL
The problem if they had any is, where are they?

Would there be an unfallen Adamite humanity living in Earthly Paradise?

CT
Since they are all the offspring of Adam, don't we believe that all inherited the curse on account of the one man?

For Adam and Eve, and even the earth, the curse was retroactive. It wasn't given to only those who were born after that date, or only those plants that sprang up after that date.

HGL
They can only have inherited the curse if they were born to Adam after his fall.

There can't be a retroactive curse.

CT
It was retroactive for Adam and Eve and the earth. You're not giving any reason to believe otherwise.

HGL
It was on Adam after he had eaten, on Eve after she had eaten, and on Earth after they had eaten.

There is no reason whatsoever in the Bible or in sound theoology there was a curse which worked before that in a timeloop back from that moment, even if God could have managed it, as to His capacity : it would have been against His justice.