dimanche 30 juin 2019

Mark Shea has a Good Point in Article, a Less Good one Against me (though it's me saying so)


Mark Shea
28 juin, 10:48
How Monks Helped Invent Sign Language
JUNE 28, 2019 BY MARK SHEA
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/06/how-monks-helped-invent-sign-language.html


Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I wonder if anybody has ever undertaken to do an exhaustive catalogue of all the spinoffs and side-benefits the world owes to the Catholic tradition and the work of enterprising Catholics who were either just puzzling over the Tradition and stumbled on something cool, beautiful or useful or who were just trying to get stuff done (like teaching the deaf or teaching Slavs) and just cooked up sign language or the Cyrillic alphabet in order to get the job done? I wonder if such a project is even possible?"

To do, yes, as long as you don't hope for too exact comprehensiveness, it would always be updated.

To spread? Not by links when FB can block them as spam ... by the way, you weren't one of the guys helping to get my links marked as spam or whatever else incompatible with community standards, were you?

Mark Shea
No. I have better things to do. Stop being paranoid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
With seven thousand plus articles on line, with FB blocking for no valid reason, when I link to them, with readers documented in my stats as very much from Russia and Ukraine, I don't think it paranoid to ask who's behind invalid blocking.

I did not flat out accuse you, I asked "you weren't one of ... were you?"

Also, marking a thing as spam is done quickly and often thoughtlessly when suppressing a comment.

I have other suspects, though.

mardi 18 juin 2019

FB's Definition of Spam


Abusive Block on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica Blog · FB's Definition of Spam

I just saw what FB presents its community standards as meaning by "spam".

16. Spam
We work hard to limit the spread of commercial spam to prevent false advertising, fraud, and security breaches, all of which detract from people's ability to share and connect. We do not allow people to use misleading or inaccurate information to collect likes, followers, or shares.


All of my blogs are, in the online version*, non-commercial.

As to fraud, "misleading or inaccurate information" that comes down to some admin on FB considering what I said on a blog post as wrong, and spam marking it as he judges it wrong, which in turn means, FB censors content.

For instance, if my blog favours Catholicism, which they regularly do, a Muslim FB admin can consider that as "misleading or inaccurate information". If they favour Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism, both of which also regularly happens, a man from the Communist Party or with NASA affiliations or from National Center for Science Education can abuse the position as FB admin to spam mark my blog post.

Just because "spam" and "scam" sound similar, they are not the same word, and "scam" is a criminal charge which they would like to prove, not just "apply" by marking things to become invisible to all but them and myself.

And as to spam properly speaking, putting up an article not only on your own wall, but also that of a concerned by subject or of a friend having birthday is clearly something other than "unsolicited mass mail". If a friend of mine should seriously feel as if getting too many of my posts on his or her wall, the person is free to say it and unfriending is clearly an option.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Parmentier
St. Ephrem of Edessa
18.VI.2019

* I do give an option of readers starting to print and sell, and then their book format version of some of my texts would very much be commercial. If it were advertised, it would arguably be advertised by them, and therefore they would have to answer for, for instance, books being available on time.

mardi 4 juin 2019

Paul Price Against Geocentrism, For Sarfati and especially Carter


Paul Price
27 août 2018 ·
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTdZvs8upI

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Also not available.

Has he taken back the position?

Meanwhile:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2019/05/with-steven-taylor-on-lorentz.html


Paul Price
Flat Earth? The Bible And Science Say No!
Creation Ministries International | 5.IX.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTdZvs8upI


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did he withdraw Geocentrism from what he attacked?

Paul Price
No, nothing was changed about the video's content. You can watch it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think I started some 20 minutes already.

More precisely, 19, and I answered them:

New blog on the kid : First 19 Minutes with Carter
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/09/first-19-minutes-with-carter.html


Had other things pressing back then, so did not resume the rest so far.

Paul Price
Looks like you're some kind of absolute geocentrist? I'm not going to be able to say anything on this that Dr. Carter and Sarfati have not already said, so you're wasting your time trying to promote your doctrine here. The Bible is not written to give us a scientific cosmology and it doesn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Looks like you're some kind of absolute geocentrist?"

Most certainly.

"I'm not going to be able to say anything on this that Dr. Carter and Sarfati have not already said, so you're wasting your time trying to promote your doctrine here."

More like looking for an argument, and they have already if not blocked me, severely cut down answers?

"The Bible is not written to give us a scientific cosmology and it doesn't."

That's a bit like saying the Bible is not written to give us science on carbon dating, and it doesn't.

What it does though is put constraints on what dates can come with:

  • a) original pmC 100
  • b) decay normal speed (with precisely carbon, loss of radioactive substance without simultaneous and equal loss of non-radfioactive is not feasible, so I give no c for leakage)


Not because it directly adresses carbon dates, but because it has something to say about time spans.

Let's get beyond distant starlight problem for a moment. Somewhat more directly theological.

Suppose you accept heliocentrism (as to solar system), you arguably also accept stellar distances. Suppose you do that, a universe 13 billion + light years in each direction, where do you put "heaven" in the theological sense?

Let's hope you don't take the view of Henry Karlson, which I refuted here:

New blog on the kid : I Hope Other Christians had a Decent Ascension Feast
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/05/i-hope-other-christians-had-decent.html


Other issue, traditionally, before Heliocentrism, the most usual argument for God from nature was God directing heavens around earth each day. Note both King David and St Paul allude to this proof of God.

Paul Price
Hans-Georg Lundahl King David's poems do not give us a scientific description of how the solar system works. They are poems written from a human reference frame. This wrong way of thinking is exactly the same sort of misinterpretation used to promote flat earthism.

I don't accept stellar distances without question because we now know there are anomalies in redshift distances that scientists don't know how to resolve. For this reason, I accept that there are vast distances involved in the cosmos but I am agnostic as to how to determine them precisely.

Are you seriously asking where in the cosmos I believe heaven is located? We have no idea how the spiritual realm and physical realm overlap and interact. God has not revealed it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"King David's poems do not give us a scientific description of how the solar system works."

And Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 do not give a scientific description of how carbon dates work.

"They are poems written from a human reference frame."

There is no divine inerrancy in their wording? Why use solidified sea and crushing of dragons' heads to argue your view of the Flood, then?

PLUS I never said they were all there was to Biblical support for Geocentrism. How about Joshua 10, specifically 10:12? How about Habacuc specifying Joshua 10:13 with "stood still in their habitations" so as to rule out purely phenomenal language.

"This wrong way of thinking is exactly the same sort of misinterpretation used to promote flat earthism."

  • 1) You have not proven it is a wrong way of thinking;
  • 2) You have also not proven it automatically (if applied to some other passages) tends to promote flat earthism.


"I don't accept stellar distances without question because we now know there are anomalies in redshift distances that scientists don't know how to resolve. For this reason, I accept that there are vast distances involved in the cosmos but I am agnostic as to how to determine them precisely."

Nice. Are you open to fix stars being just one light day above us? Or perhaps 3 and a half light years above us?

If not, I don't think you are nearly agnostic enough about it.

"Are you seriously asking where in the cosmos I believe heaven is located?"

On your view, yes.

On my view it is clear, above the fix stars.

"We have no idea how the spiritual realm and physical realm overlap and interact."

Let me see, a legion of demons (spiritual realm in your terms) possessed a man or at least his body (physical realm in your terms) and Christ spoke audible words (physical realm in your view) and demons (spiritual realm in your view) responded by controlling speech organs (physical realm again) ... there are other items elsewhere than at Gadara.

"God has not revealed it."

God has not even used the terms "physical realm" and "spiritual realm" anywhere in the Bible. They are your terms.

However, as to interaction between physical and spiritual, there is plenty to go.

As to natural skills of understanding, am I supposed to take from you that we can know heliocentrism by them but can't know interaction between physical and spiritual by them, despite each of us being a sample of such interaction?

Christ did not become non-physical ever, and therefore He has a body now and that body is in a place now. That place is called Celestial Jerusalem.

Paul Price
"And Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 do not give a scientific description of how carbon dates work."

I never said they did. But we can interpret the Scripture rightly and rule out long ages. On the other hand one does not rule out heliocentrism by reading Scripture rightly. One only rules it out by twisting Scripture by reading it out of context and without any historical understanding of its intended meaning.

"There is no divine inerrancy in their wording? Why use solidified sea and crushing of dragons' heads to argue your view of the Flood, then?"

They are inerrant, but they are poems not literal narratives and they are written from a human reference frame, as is obvious from context. No idea what you're talking about with solidified sea or crushing heads.

"PLUS I never said they were all there was to Biblical support for Geocentrism. How about Joshua 10, specifically 10:12? How about Habacuc specifying Joshua 10:13 with "stood still in their habitations" so as to rule out purely phenomenal language."

Joshua's long day is another example of phenomenological language. Not sure how you claim to have ruled it out, but that's what it is. God is describing from a human vantage point without having to explain to the pre-scientific Israelites that in fact it was the physical planet earth that stopped (if indeed that is how God performed this miracle- we don't know!)

"Nice. Are you open to fix stars being just one light day above us? Or perhaps 3 and a half light years above us? If not, I don't think you are nearly agnostic enough about it."

No I'm not open to that. Good science proves these ridiculous ideas are not possible. You are no better than the flat earthers. Biblical creationists don't reject operational science, we reject faulty views of history.

"God has not even used the terms "physical realm" and "spiritual realm" anywhere in the Bible. They are your terms. However, as to interaction between physical and spiritual, there is plenty to go."

These ideas are easily deduced from scripture. But we know they can and do interact. In any case this is semantics.

"As to natural skills of understanding, am I supposed to take from you that we can know heliocentrism by them but can't know interaction between physical and spiritual by them, despite each of us being a sample of such interaction?"

Yeah, that's obvious.

"Christ did not become non-physical ever, and therefore He has a body now and that body is in a place now. That place is called Celestial Jerusalem."

OK, and neither you nor anybody else knows where that place is, physically, in relation to our current physical location on Earth, or if it even makes any sense to talk like that about it! (By the way, I don't recall reading the term "Celestial Jerusalem" anywhere in the Bible, so I think you are stepping outside your bounds by saying "it is called".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I never said they did. But we can interpret the Scripture rightly and rule out long ages."

Agreed.

"On the other hand one does not rule out heliocentrism by reading Scripture rightly. One only rules it out by twisting Scripture by reading it out of context and without any historical understanding of its intended meaning."

Disagreed. You need to show it, not just claim it.

"They are inerrant, but they are poems not literal narratives and they are written from a human reference frame, as is obvious from context."

Make it obvious about Psalm 18 Coeli enarrant, for one. Claiming it doesn't make it so.

"No idea what you're talking about with solidified sea or crushing heads."

Waters of deluge coming with lots of mud and dinosaur fossils often found with heads missing.

"Joshua's long day is another example of phenomenological language."

If Joshua 10:13 stood by itself it could be. We have Joshua 10:12 where Joshua is not narrator but miracle worker.

"Not sure how you claim to have ruled it out, but that's what it is. God is describing from a human vantage point without having to explain to the pre-scientific Israelites that in fact it was the physical planet earth that stopped (if indeed that is how God performed this miracle- we don't know!)"

Well, God would rather have stopped aether from turning around Earth Westward and told angels of Sun and Moon to stop going Eastward in it.

However, "pre-scientific" is a buzz word, and it has also been used to justify day-age nonsense.

In Joshua 10:12, God is not just adressing Israelites through Joshua as narrator, but, as narrated, Sun and Moon through Joshua as miracle worker.

If Earth had been what stopped moving, why did God not adress Earth through Joshua's mouth? In case you think "well, Joshua didn't know better" this would be the only time ever in the Bible God allows a miracle to happen by words not adressing the right agency.

"No I'm not open to that. Good science proves these ridiculous ideas are not possible. You are no better than the flat earthers."

I think you ought to read my reply to Carter, from 19:00 to 24:01 in video. Here:

New blog on the kid : Continuing with Carter to 24:01
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/06/continuing-with-carter-to-2401.html


Apart from that, saying so doesn't make it so.

"Biblical creationists don't reject operational science, we reject faulty views of history."

Stellar distances are not operational. If you claim angles from which "parallax" argument for closest higher distances is derived is operational, so are percentages of modern Carbon.

"OK, and neither you nor anybody else knows where that place is, physically, in relation to our current physical location on Earth,"

The sphere outside / above fix stars, arguably location either above Jerusalem or above Southern Cross.

That's a very basic Christian understanding of cosmology for centuries, up to the Heliocentric nonsense.

"(By the way, I don't recall reading the term "Celestial Jerusalem" anywhere in the Bible, so I think you are stepping outside your bounds by saying "it is called""

I would say Apocalypse 7 and 21 describe it, and "celestial" obviously refers to its local non-identity with terrestrial Jerusalem. While, as you said, it is not found in the Bible, it is found so in Catholic theologians referring to it.

Paul Price
Let me explain this clearly: geocentrism is wrong. End of story. Operational science rules out the idea that everything revolves around the earth. If you want to understand this, then go get a basic education in operational science. You obviously refuse to be taught on this subject, so it's end of conversation as far as I'm concerned.

https://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism

Here is a place you can get some basic science on this topic:

https://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/

And finally,

https://creation.com/refuting-geocentrism-response

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Let me explain this clearly: geocentrism is wrong."

A claim.

You leave the explanation to Rhett Allain and to Robert Carter and you give as first link one which I already refuted.

Fine, leaves me with task of refuting the other two.


It seems, this publication of his was taken down with our comments, like the other one. No notifications left from him on notification bell.

Paul Price Seems to Miss the Obvious


One can believe 2 Peter 3:8 to Genesis 2:17 without believing creation days (the one in which they ate of the fruit wasn't one) corresponds to thousand years of subsequent history.

One can also believe both without being a Chiliastic pre-millennialist. I do.

I seem to miss something too, namely how one can be pre-millennialist without being Chiliast. Is it something obvious?

Anywhere, here is our debate.

My initial concern is that 2 Peter 3:8 both gives a literal truthfulness to Genesis 2:17 and by this application falls outside any day age views on creation days in Genesis chapter 1.

Paul Price
25 octobre 2018
Apologist Matt Walsh makes a seriously uninformed attack on biblical creationism
by Paul Price | Published: 25 October 2018
creation.com/matt-walsh-attacks-creationism


Hans-Georg Lundahl
__________________

Did Adam and Eve literally die?

Another argument brought forth is that God promised Adam and Eve that “in the day you eat of it [the forbidden fruit] you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2:17). Walsh reasons that since they didn’t literally die that day, it must refer only to spiritual, not physical death, repeating another Hugh Ross argument. But the consequences of the Curse are clearly not merely spiritual, but physical as well. God curses the very ground for our sake. He introduced pain in childbirth as well as thorns and thistles in nature. Are those spiritual thorns and thistles? What would that even mean? He displays no awareness of the fact that the literal translation of the Hebrew there should read, “dying you shall die.” God was basically saying that the penalty for sin would be the loss of immortality; that the process of death would begin at that moment—not that the process of dying would be completed in one day. Walsh also ignores the difference in grammatical construction here: “in the day,” as opposed to “day one,” “day two,” etc.

A “day with the Lord …” lasts 1000 years??

Walsh predictably trots out the well-worn misapplication of 2 Peter 3:8, “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years…” He uses this to try to imply that God does not have to mean literal days when he uses the word ‘day’. But the full reading of the verse brings us back – a thousand years are like a day. This is synonymous parallelism. Peter is merely making a point about how God is not limited in his perspective of time as man is; but that has no bearing on the debate about how the Hebrew is to be interpreted in Genesis 1.4 It’s just a red herring.

________________

930 years = same millennium = same day.

2 Peter 3:8 has no direct bearing on literal sense of 6 days, but definitely on Genesis 2:17.

Paul Price
You could possibly argue there is some kind of esoteric connection there, but why bring it up?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Esoteric?

It was in an answer by St Justin Martyr to Trypho the Jew.

Paul Price
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Yes, it's esoteric. Justin Martyr and other early Christians taught Chiliasm. It's an interesting notion, but speculative and nowhere clearly laid out in Scripture. It is also very dubious from what we can piece together from history, because it seems like more that 6000 years have already elapsed even under the more conservative estimates.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Justin Martyr and other early Christians taught Chiliasm."

"other" is ambiguous - all other or some other?

In fact, some other, he mentions other other who didn't.

Teaching Chiliasm doesn't make you an esoteric, or wrong about any other issue, and the word about Adam's death in same millennium is not tied to Chiliasm.

Paul Price
Actually the word about Adam's death in the same 'day' is definitely tied to Chiliasm. They believed that the days of creation were both literal and figurative, standing for 6 thousand year periods of history. I like the idea but I cannot prove it and Dr. Carter has done a study that casts serious doubt on the idea that we are under 6000 years now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Actually the word about Adam's death in the same 'day' is definitely tied to Chiliasm."

No. See my refutation of your following argument.

"They believed that"

Here we have the kind of "scholarship" which argues "khûg definitely meant a falt circle" and why "because they believed the earth was flat".

"the days of creation were both literal and figurative, standing for 6 thousand year periods of history."

While St Justin may have believed this, he does not tie his answer to Trypho to this idea.

That is why your answer is a lot of "scholarly" second guessing on what someone may have meant but didn't say.

"I like the idea but I cannot prove it"

Which does not make it esoteric. It is also not limited to Chiliastic Fathers.

"and Dr. Carter has done a study that casts serious doubt on the idea that we are under 6000 years now."

[doubts on idea] We are under 6000 years? Fine with me.

We are in fact somewhat above 7000 years, and I can think this can be accounted for by us being "at the end of the thousand years" this meaning the Church age (note, on this view, Apocalypse 19 = certain verses in Apocalypse 20, a bit like Genesis 2 = certain verses in Genesis 1).

Why "above" rather than below? One reason could be God stretching and compressing the thousand years as He sees fit, another could be some periods of actual time don't count, like too bad times for God to keep them in the record.

So, no esotericism involved here. Also, no Chiliasm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My bad : "falt circle" should be "flat circle".

Paul Price
Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't follow your reasoning or what you're arguing for. The concept of Chiliasm is inherently pre-millenial, which I do happen to agree with personally. But pre-millenialism in no way depends upon the truth of chiliasm. I have no interest in debating these things on facebook, however.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK .... can we take the next turn per mail?

You see, you seem to be saying:

  • 1) there is a difference between pre-millennialism and chiliasm, which I don't get;
  • 2) applying David's and Peter's words to Genesis 2:17 is chiliastic (though pre-millennialism is not tainted by it),
  • 3) because believing in days of creation corresponding to millennia of history is somehow Chiliastic
  • 4) and because that is somehow implied when St Justin used those words about Genesis 2:17.


As you find FB little overseeable, your next turn may be to my mail, which is hgl@dr.com

Paul Price
Hans-Georg Lundahl No, I just don't feel the need to debate eschatology with you. Maybe you can explain to me what you're trying to get at. The days of creation are literal, not symbolic. Whether there is a deeper hidden meaning behind why God chose 6 days as opposed to any other number is something God never revealed to us in Scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am sorry, but the initial issue was whether 2 Peter 3:8, while not relating to creation days, relates to Genesis 2:17. It was you who dragged in Creation : History, while pretending that refuted.

I really don't see why you sneer at "Chiliasm" while having a Chiliastic (also known as pre-millennialist) eschatology, nor what Chiliasm has to do with St Justin relating Genesis 2:17 to 2 Peter 3:8.

And if you go back through what we already covered, I think I already explained that.

Paul Price
Hans-Georg Lundahl The 2 Peter 3 passage does not ONLY say that "a day is like a thousand years", it also says "a thousand years are like a day." It's a symbolic/poetic way of saying that God is not limited by the bounds of time. Any deeper hidden meaning there is simply not revealed in scripture, and I don't know what the point is in even bringing up Genesis 2:17. When we say "in the day ..." it means "when ...."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And when Adam and Eve died 930 years later, they would be agreeing with God's perspective, that their little less than thousand years had been but as a day.

Paul Price
Hans-Georg Lundahl How is that? There is no apparent connection between these two passages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, there is a problem, how did Adam die same day, and there is a solution, he died same millennium.

Considering Genesis 2:17 was said while God was in perfect company with Adam and Eve, this sense could have been obvious to them, though not to all later readers.

When you have a problem and a solution, I think this is at least an apparent connection.

Paul Price
Hans-Georg Lundahl There is no problem because in the Hebrew it is properly understood, "in the day that you eat of it [the fruit] you will begin to die." And "in the day" is a figurative phrase that means "in the time".

https://creation.com/why-did-god-impose-the-death-penalty-for-sin

Hans-Georg Lundahl
tried to
In the day = in the time?

Vague. And was the "time" when Adam ate really the "time" when he died?

"Begin to die"?

Inaccessible for most non-Hebraists for most of the Christian era.

Note
La publication a été supprimée
Fermer
La publication ou l’objet que vous commentiez a été supprimé par son propriétaire et ne peut plus être commenté.