Geocentrism vs "Simon Skinner"

Geocentrism defended,
A against reasons Geocentrism Defended Against FrJerome Zeiler
B against ad hominems Geocentrism vs "Simon Skinner"

Simon Skinner*

status, 6.IX.2023

The overwhelming majority of people I've encountered on the internet who claim the earth is stationary and at the centre of the universe, and also claim that science is based on motivated lies and assumptions in order to hide God, also similarly claim the earth is flat.

You'll already be well aware of this from internet search results for geocentrism, and several posts here (including from admins) have recycled their same material.

These are people of faith who claim an evil conspiracy by those in power to undermine religion. However, by their ridiculous claims, dishonest tactics and promotion of accompanying right-wing conspiracy theories, they actually cause serious damage to the image and credibility of religion.

Are you not worried that this group has the same effect ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// The overwhelming majority of people I've encountered on the internet who claim the earth is stationary and at the centre of the universe, and also claim that science is based on motivated lies and assumptions in order to hide God, also similarly claim the earth is flat. //

May be the case among Judaising Protestants, but not among Catholics.

// You'll already be well aware of this from internet search results for geocentrism, and several posts here (including from admins) have recycled their same material. //

Flat earthers are perhaps overly sceptical about voyages, and part time inept about horizon questions, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong in showing healthy skepsis against pseudo-arguments for Heliocentrism. Nor that they will miss the objections that are also obvious to round-earthers.

// These are people of faith who claim an evil conspiracy by those in power to undermine religion. //

Have you checked out what the Russian revolution changed, and how much of it is implemented outside Communist countries as well?

Have you heard of the Kulturkampf and the Third Republic? How much of those politics are being recycled and some Catholics don't dare to mention it?

// However, by their ridiculous claims, dishonest tactics and promotion of accompanying right-wing conspiracy theories, they actually cause serious damage to the image and credibility of religion. //

Image and credibility before whom?

As far dishonest tactics, what is done to my blogging definitely is one, as people are time after time giving me YET another chance to change my ideas on things I have not wavered on the last 20 years or more, and they pretend to do so at a preliminary for taking seriously I really mean what I say.

Apart from being dishonest, it is cruel, as it leaves me poor, and over 10 000 blog posts that could feed paper printed essay collections and royalties are being repressed over giving me YET another chance.

Was there a priest who put you up to this to give me YET another chance to change my mind? Well, there are Catholic priests who constitute at least some kind of harlot to the enemies of the Catholic Church.

Simon Skinner

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl It's a bit difficult to understand some of your points, but your English is certainly a lot better than my French 👍.

//You claim Catholics are immune from believing the flat earth conspiracy nonsense. I know that to be incorrect.

They are not displaying 'healthy skepsis', they place such a low weighting on empirical evidence and such a high weighting on their (flat earth) religion (based on rigid interpretation of the Bible and that science is biassed or dishonest) that they are convinced of the wrong reality. Their priority order for the weighting of evidence which led them to their ridiculous conclusion is exactly the same as Johnny Proctor has described in this thread.

// If they do understand the problems / objections they happily ignore them for the sake of keeping their faith and world view.

// Image and credibility before anyone rational, religious or not.

// I don't know what you mean about blog posts and essays, and no priest could put me up to this, or anything else for that matter.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Simon, with all due respect, I asserted that Catholic geocentrists obtain their cosmological viewpoints through the sources of revelation. It is simply inaccurate to compare flat-earthers to us as there is no Tradition of Biblical interpretation that buttresses belief in a flat earth. There is a broad and venerable consensus among the Church Fathers and Doctors in the geocentric conception of the cosmos.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor Do you find respect due to him, really, after his attitude?

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl, as an admin, I have to be polite. 😉

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor You are aware, the profile picture this "Simon Skinner" has is from a film where "Simon Skinner" is a crook played by Timothy Dalton.

Expelling people with fake profiles is also an option.

Or check if the real Simon Skinner (yes, there is one) uses the Timothy Dalton picture on FB and has denouncing Young Earth Creationism, Geocentrism as well as Flat Earth among his intellectual hobbies.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Hans-Georg, thanks for the explanation. I hadn't scrutinized his user profile. The admin team will take your suggestions into consideration.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner "You claim Catholics are immune from believing the flat earth conspiracy nonsense. I know that to be incorrect."

I never spoke of "immune," nor of "from believing conspiracy nonsense".

I simply speak of not being flat earth.

If you meant you find them believing other tenets than that, and that you categorise them as "flat earth conspiracy nonsense" I find your categorisation disingenious. "Conspiracy nonsense" would do. And even then I'd like you showing examples rather than taking your word for it being so.

If you meant they often go for earth being flat, I call your bluff. Show me guys who do and who can credibly be categorised as Catholics.

"They are not displaying 'healthy skepsis',"

Totally beside the point. Displaying what you call healthy skepsis is not the normal way to get earth being round. The normal way to get earth being round is NOT to display skepsis in the face of voyage narratives.

"they place such a low weighting on empirical evidence"

I only have your word for it, and it's not good enough.

"and such a high weighting on their (flat earth) religion (based on rigid interpretation of the Bible and that science is biassed or dishonest)"

There is obviously a thing or two you could consider rigid interpretation of the Bible in Geocentrism.

I have yet to seen a coherent even rigorist argument for flat earth from the Bible, and I do interact with at least two flat earthers, one of whom recently died, Rob Skiba. It's not as if I hadn't heard flat earth arguments purportedly from taking the Bible literally.

"they are convinced of the wrong reality."

This totally doesn't sound like a compte rendu of their arguments. It sounds like psychoanalysis, i e dishonesty.

It is NOT up to shrinks to decide what's the right or the wrong reality on items like cosmology, that's just Communist politicalised psychiatry - or similar.

"Their priority order for the weighting of evidence which led them to their ridiculous conclusion is exactly the same as Johnny Proctor has described in this thread."

You have NOT shown:

• that you have any empiric evidence for Heliocentrism being true other than scientists saying so, which is not empiric evidence for the matter at hand
• that any Catholic Geocentric is flat earth
• that you care one whit about actual argument rather than calumny.

"they happily ignore them for the sake of keeping their faith and world view."

Sounds like a shrink spreading his bla bla to demonise or infantilise someone. I mean your assessment of them.

You have NOT shown this to be true.

"before anyone rational,"

You have not shown you are able to assess who is rational.

"I don't know what you mean about blog posts and essays,"

Cancel culture. Does it ring a bell?

I find that dishonest.

"no priest could put me up to this, or anything else for that matter."

Or anything else? Not even to pray three Hail Mary's in penance? Well, then you aren't a Catholic.

New Start

Simon Skinner

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl You claim declaring that flat earthers are wrong is 'Communist politicised psychiatry". That's pretty creative. Communists, psychiatrists (and priests?) appear to be in the front of your mind..

Nature has no regard for our thoughts or politics.

I'm interested in the process by which people can employ motivated reasoning rather than empirical evidence. Flat earthers are an extreme example of this and I understand most in this group are more rational and hopefully able to converse calmly. But the fact it's taboo in this group is in itself an acknowledgement of discomfort at the similarity.

I intend no animosity and apologise if my questions have caused offense.

which

I answer twice, I and II

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner "You claim declaring that flat earthers are wrong is 'Communist politicised psychiatry". That's pretty creative. Communists, psychiatrists (and priests?) appear to be in the front of your mind.."

You are once again showing a disregard for my actual words, and a preference for analysing my mind - exactly as psychiatrists would.

You declared flat earthers wrong, so do I. BUT you declare round earth geocentrics flat earthers and therefore wrong, because they have the same mentality. Instead of arguing with round earth geocentrics on the merits of the case, as I do with flat earthers.

I think the creativity is on your side, not mine.

"I'm interested in the process by which people can employ motivated reasoning rather than empirical evidence."

Take a look into your mirror then.

You analyse geocentrics by your motivated reasoning, instead of by the evidence of their (our) words.

"But the fact it's taboo in this group"

Not I who set the policy. I have no qualms about getting to flat earthers and reasoning things out, whether four corners or Lake Michigan horizon.

Simon Skinner

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl again with the psychiatrists ?

I didn't ever declare geocentrics flat earthers. I know most aren't. I already acknowledged that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your screen shot is not of something you acknowledged, but a comment of mine.

You are for BOTH stating sth about being "convinced of the wrong reality" - which sounds like a psychiatric definition of delusion.

What would I define as "wrong reality" / "delusion"? If you are 25 years old and don't speak Danish, you are deluded if you are convinced you invented LEGO.

But you seem prepared to drag in having the wrong cosmology into that.

And for neither are you dealing (at least here) with the actual arguments as arguments.

In other words, you are not a normal player on the argumentation field.

Simon Skinner

Author

Hans-Georg Lundahl Whatever this is, it's not communication. I hope you get over your issues with priests, Communists and psychiatrists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner, as you speak of "issues" you confirm my suspicion you could be a kind of psychiatrist.

And dito for "it's not communication" - you set up a "communication" over your extreme ad hominems, and when I call you out as showing yourself therein something else than a normal communicator, you say "it's not communication" ... I was not all that interested in communicating with YOU in the first place.

I asked the admin to block you for taking a fake profile picture.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Communists, psychiatrists (and priests?) appear to be in the front of your mind.."

Communists and psychiatrists have a certain way of ignoring the others' argument. I had a run in with a few priests, one of whom had without any evidence called me a flat earther, and who might have somewhat Communist leanings.

Epilogue?

Alex Naszados

Admin

Since this group is emphatically not a flat earth forum, please alert an admin if you notice anything that promotes it or attempts to conflate flat earthism with the Neotychonic model. This includes posts by admins that "recycle their material"- in which case it would definitely have been in error and a correction would be much appreciated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Naszados This is also not a psychoanalysis forum.

Can one alert admins if anything suspiciously like a psychiatrist or psychologist turns up?

* He seems to have taken a film character as alias, his portrait is identic to the villain Simon Skinner of Hot Fuzz, portrayed by Timothy Dalton.

https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Simon_Skinner

Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

A

Ken Wolgemuth

Status a, 6.IX.2023

Fred Mcnabb, To wrap up the tree ring segment for radiocarbon dating, I will show examples of the calibration curve. This first one is from 1950 to 2k, meaning 2,000 years BP, before present. Notice there are about 1,500 C-14 measurements for this segment along of the calibration curve. The for 2k to 4k there are over 200 points. Then the 3rd, shows the Biblical Archaeology examples.

[omitting pictures]

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Let me highlight a thing.

Notice there are about 1,500 C-14 measurements for this segment along of the calibration curve. The for 2k to 4k there are over 200 points.

Am I correct in reading this as ... 50 BC to 1950 AD has 7.5 times as many measurements as 2050 BC to 50 BC?

II

Ken Wolgemuth

Auteur

And this is the IntCal13 calibration curve for 12k to 14k, with 276 data points of C-14 measured in German Oak species. The result is that the radiocarbon age is 13,500 ± 60 calendar years before 1950. On the calibration curve, and error value will be different along the curve because of the variability of the production of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere. This 14,000 years BP is the extent of tree rings as a continuous cross-dating from living trees.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth I actually checked on the German site for tree ring studies.

You said:
"a continuous cross-dating from living trees."

From my check:
There are at least different series, that only partly overlap.

The only series that extends into the present, directly, not via other series, began 2000 years ago.

For the 276 points where carbon dates and tree rings meet, you seem to presume the samples were primarily tree ring dated and only when that was finished and well secure on its own side, the carbon dates were attached to verify the calibration of carbon.

But in fact, each of these samples was primarily assigned to its place in time because of carbon dates. THEN checked with similar samples and THEN assigned its place in tree rings.

Let's take the raw carbon date of Perry Mastadon, 9 700 BC, that's very close on the 9600 BC when Göbekli Tepe began. So, with Göbekli Tepe being Babel, beginning just after the death of Noah, this would be from the final years of Noah's earthly life. I do take Flood and Babel as more secure points of calibration, even if way further between them, than tree rings.

B

Ken Wolgemuth

Status b, 26 Aug 01:08

I have a rather simple question. This group has the title of Radiometric Dating. Is there anyone here who wants to understand about how radiocarbon dating is done? Here is an example from Biblical archaeology.

[omitting pictures]

Under which I answered

I and II, the first of which quotes him on a part of the thread with someone else's answer, and the second of which quotes another of his own threads.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So far I have not encountered anyone in the YEC community who understands what geochemists are doing to obtain a radiocarbin dating age in calendar years age."

• 1) check remaining carbon 14 content and interpret roughly as the raw carbon date
• 2) see at what point or points the raw carbon date fits into a calibration curve
• 3) to obtain a calibration curve in the first place, get samples of an age known independently of radiocarbon (e g tree rings or historically)
• 4) this will result typically in wiggles on the calibration curve, i e more than one calendar year can fit one raw date, example, Hallstatt plateau, obtained in the Cambridge calibration by tree ring dating, a sample from 750 to 450 will typically have a raw date of c. 550 BC (or 2500 years ago, 2500 BP).

If I got anything in above wrong, I'd be happy to stand corrected.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

From another thread.

"And not a single PhD in this tribe ever even shows or mentions the calibration curve developed by the radiocarbon research community to convert lab data of C-14 into calendar years."

I am not a PhD. But I know of the calibration curve well enough to be aware of the Hallstadt plateau, and I think the calibration is probably correct for the last 3000 years out of the 6000 given in the Cambridge calibration (Minze Stuiver and her colleague whose name escapes me).

I have commented on it on a blog that Facebook is illegally and dishonestly blocking as an attempt to get fake likes on my part, same blog from which I took certain tables going back beyond the Trojan War and back to the Flood.

Affez Tlemsanix

Hans-Georg Lundahl The PhD pride is ridiculous.

It's like they despise those without PhD's because they went to school for so many years, spent so much money on education, and are trying to preserve their status-quo that they enjoy so much.

Heck, all these doctors with MD's and PhD's were the ones who bought into the OxyContin scam of the 90's and 2000's, because of Purdue Pharma's claim and FDA's approval of the drug as "safe and non-addictive." These MD's and PhD's doled out millions of OxyContin prescriptions, directly resulting in 400,000 deaths during the opioid crisis spanning for more than a decade.

On the other hand, it is increasingly prohibitive for a Creationist to earn a PhD from a well-accredited university, unless the Creationist remains mum and submits to some of their ridiculous old-age theories regarding numerous scientific fields. Only a few actually have PhD's, but most of them earned their PhD's before converting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Affez Tlemsanix I'd agree pretty much with the assessment of Academic culture, however, I'm from another field (Latin and a few more language and literature subjects) and I went away from what could have been a PhD project in 1992 - 1993.

Flood vs Dudley

Dale Stuckwish

Meilleur contributeur

19 Aug 2023

Fish eating fish: These fossil fish show rapid burial in watery sedimentary strata and young age of the Earth. This happened during the Worldwide Genesis Flood of Noah's day ( Genesis 6-8).

M M

It isnt funny. Why laugh?

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

M M Because it's not true, ......... It could have been a local mega flood.

How do you know it had to be the flood of Noah's day????

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes Local megaflood here, local megaflood there, local megaflood everywhere ... wait, then it isn't local anymore?

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl There have been many mega floods all over the world at various times. ....... Just do a search!

Here I'll save you the trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood

J D

Dudley Barnes Wikipedia is biased. They're atheists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes some of these events are contested.

Black Sea flooded or slowly rose? Anyway, it's on my view post-Flood.

Only one of these is given as millions of years ago. The ones listed would, apart from this one, be too young, and as this one is the Mediterranean, it won't explain fossils found above ground.

I'd consider all of the listed events as direct or (especially for Black Sea) indirect and slightly delayed consequences of the Flood.

Your view is, these things happen all the time, over millions of years, and we take unknown local megafloods to account for any new example of rapid burial. I think my argument has a form reminiscent of Occam's razor - don't multiply flood events if one may do the work.

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl They were just given as an example. ....... You can contest it, but we don't know what happen before recorded geology.

There is much evidences of asteroids and meteorites and major volcanic eruptions like the Deccan and Siberians traps causing mass extinctions at VARIOUS TIMES. .......

You cannot just take the easy way out lumping them all into one gigantic flood, without considering all these events. That's like burying your head in the sand.

Plus the varves of Lake Suigetsu has 70,000 years of recorded sediments. Which are measured and observed over many years.

If there were a global flood to extent promoted my YEC-ist there would only be 4400 varves at the most. ..... As the saying goes the rocks do not lie.

Take the time to study them well.

https://satoyama.pref.fukui.lg.jp/files/uploads/Lake/520Suigetsu/520Verves1.pdf*

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes "but we don't know what happen before recorded geology."

We don't know naturally (i e except by revelation) what happened before recorded history (which begins in Genesis 2).

"You cannot just take the easy way out lumping them all into one gigantic flood, without considering all these events."

You may have missed the memo, but The Flood was more than just a Flooding. The events do fit into it.

"Plus the varves of Lake Suigetsu has 70,000 years of recorded sediments."

Varves are easily multiplied in tubulent and resettling conditions. Just because Suigetsu is calm now, it doesn't mean it didn't start out more turbulent and reshuffle varves back then.

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl
// We don't know naturally (i e except by revelation) what happened before recorded history (which begins in Genesis 2). //

Your assuming the bible is a true record. When it is historical fiction.

The words of the bible are that of men who claim they are speaking for God. ........ There is no way to verify that, ...... it is simply hearsay and anecdotal.

OTOH *the creator's* natural laws and principles are easy to follow, forming patterns naturally, recording climate changes annually which we can rely on.

Dendrochronology, Stalagmites cores, coral cores, and even ice cores give us annual seasonal changes which all collaborate each other naturally.

// You may have missed the memo, but The Flood was more than just a Flooding. The events do fit into it. //

Only when you denied the evidence and *make it* fit.

// "Plus the varves of Lake Suigetsu has 70,000 years of recorded sediments."

Varves are easily multiplied in tubulent and resettling conditions. Just because Suigetsu is calm now, it doesn't mean it didn't start out more turbulent and reshuffle varves back then. //

This is completely false! ....... And a typical example of denying the evidence to make it fit the Noah's flood story.

You obviously do not know what a varve is, ....... and it is clearly shown in the article I posted.

Varves are couplets that are formed yearly during seasonal changes from winter to summer. Once disturbed they will not return to their original form.

Your treating them as they are just layers of the same material as in clay and shale ...... they are NOT.

The patterns that have been observed and measured say over the last 100 years *are consistent* to those going back 70,000 years. ........ This would not be the case if a major flood like Noah's ever happen, ...... it would only go back 4400 years. .........

In fact normal floods and volcanic eruptions** are also recorded in the varves (*the creators archives*) for all of us to study!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes // Your assuming the bible is a true record. When it is historical fiction.

The words of the bible are that of men who claim they are speaking for God. ........ There is no way to verify that, ...... it is simply hearsay and anecdotal. //

SOME words of the Bible are that of men who both claimed to speak for God and (usually) proved the claim with miracles.

It's in this category I place most of Genesis 1.

SOME (quite a lot) is observed events recorded by those observing and either given by them (John, Matthew), or in a later collection (Judges) or by a later editor (Genesis, Luke).

// OTOH *the creator's* natural laws and principles are easy to follow, forming patterns naturally, recording climate changes annually which we can rely on. //

In fact, no.

// Dendrochronology, //

Like the other (now usually) lignine based method, history, the further back you go, the smaller and fewer samples there are.

// Only when you denied the evidence and *make it* fit. //

Denying a piece of evidence and making a piece of evidence fit are two different operations, which is it?

// This is completely false! //

Based on what evidence? Oh, your INTERPRETATION of Lake Suigetsu ...

// And a typical example of denying the evidence to make it fit the Noah's flood story. //

Or INTERPRETING evidence I don't deny in other ways than you do ... thanks for clarifying you didn't mean actually denying anything we actually observe!

// You obviously do not know what a varve is //

I know what it looks like and I know Guy Berthault has been able to reproduce such much quicker.

// Varves are couplets that are formed yearly during seasonal changes from winter to summer //

That could be one way of interpreting things that look like that. Flower layers in Lake Suigetsu are actually a good candidate for actually being seasonal.

// Once disturbed they will not return to their original form. //

No, they will return to the lake bottom as *more* varves than previously. Not as same varves, like you rightly said. Not as fewer or as non-varves. But as *more* varves.

// The patterns that have been observed and measured say over the last 100 years *are consistent* to those going back 70,000 years. //

70,000 years would be one way of taking this consistence.

However, uniformitarian consistency is not consistent with evidence we have for non-uniformitarian events, ever so often.

// it would only go back 4400 years //

Or close to 5000. Which is what I think it does, but disturbed and reshuffled varves give the impression of 70,000 years instead.

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl // SOME words of the Bible are that of men who both claimed to speak for God and (usually) proved the claim with miracles.

It's in this category I place most of Genesis 1. //

Claims with unnatural miracles of a supernatural god is the work of tricksters and imposter who try to fool people into thinking they have special powers and knowledge from their god. It has fooled millions.

I believe in natural miracles by the natural creator. ...... The creator does not need to go contrary to the natural laws and principles of creation to prove anything.

It's when things go opposite to the physical laws, is when one should raise their level of skepticism.

// SOME (quite a lot) is observed events recorded by those observing and either given by them (John, Matthew), or in a later collection (Judges) or by a later editor (Genesis, Luke). //

The story of Jesus is based on false premises and fake genealogies. The first 2 chapters of Matthew show that.

** Verse 1 of Matt:1 for an example, says it is a genealogy of Jesus the son of Abraham and David who apparently are the great grand fathers of God. ...... lol.

But jesus is God and doesn't need a genealogy or descendants. ........ This is pure mythology masquerading as a legal document. ........ They'd put you in goal if you tried to used that as a means to claim tax exemption.

// In fact, no. //

Yes they are !! ...... that is how we come to have all the benefits of our modern world. Because mankind has followed the natural laws and principles governing our universe and put them to use.

Dendrochronology can now be traced back 19000 years due to cross linking.

// Denying a piece of evidence and making a piece of evidence fit are two different operations, which is it? //

It is both, ..... like what you do with the varves. ....... The evidence shown the annual couplets go make 70000.

But because this conflicts with your paradigm you have to deny it. But because it is so strong of evidence you then have to try and *make it fit* by discrediting the evidence and distorting it as if it was normal layers of soil.

// Based on what evidence? Oh, your INTERPRETATION of Lake Suigetsu ... //

No, it is not an INTERPRETATION, ....... the facts have been presented and can be observed in real time year after year as the seasons change during the year. Scientists know exactly how they form.

// I know what it looks like and I know Guy Berthault has been able to reproduce such much quicker//

Sorry, but this false ....... Send me the links where he has produces varves similar to those found in Lake Suigetsu.

Guy Berthault has been able to produce layers in running water that is well know for standard sedimentation. ......... These are not standard sediments. These are sediments that form alternating through the year.

// That could be one way of interpreting things that look like that. Flower layers in Lake Suigetsu are actually a good candidate for actually being seasonal. //

No, it is the only interpretation as it is monitored each year and measured.

// No, they will return to the lake bottom as *more* varves than previously. Not as same varves, like you rightly said. Not as fewer or as non-varves. But as *more* varves. //

That lake is tranquil and quite with little or no disturbances from running water. Which makes it an ideal place to study varves.***

// 70,000 years would be one way of taking this consistence.

However, uniformitarian consistency is not consistent with evidence we have for non-uniformitarian events, ever so often.//

Every thing about the creation is uniform ...... from the leaves on trees to the growth of humans, uniform patterns are every where ....

And to deny uniformitarianism is to deny the creators natural laws and principles. Even as demonstrated in Guy Berthault sluice experiments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes Before we go on with the rest, can we take this part?

// Claims with unnatural miracles of a supernatural god is the work of tricksters and imposter who try to fool people into thinking they have special powers and knowledge from their god. It has fooled millions.
I believe in natural miracles by the natural creator. ...... The creator does not need to go contrary to the natural laws and principles of creation to prove anything.
It's when things go opposite to the physical laws, is when one should raise their level of skepticism. //

1) "Claims with unnatural miracles of a supernatural god is the work of tricksters and imposter who try to fool people into thinking they have special powers and knowledge from their god. It has fooled millions."

How do you believe a trickster makes it appear that a miracle of supernatural type was not just a historic event, but a historic event that all of the community already remembered?

2) "I believe in natural miracles by the natural creator. ...... The creator does not need to go contrary to the natural laws and principles of creation to prove anything."

Why do you consider a supernatural miracle as "contrary to natural laws"?

Any event in normal nature is the product of more than one factor, more than one law. The difference between a pen suspended at shoulder height and a pen dropping from shoulder height is not the law of gravity, but the interference or not of fingers with it.

No natural law can on its own predict the outcome, because no scientist can ever exclude the interference of something else than it. Why could God acting supernaturally not be sometimes that something else?

Besides, whether God needs or "does not need" to prove anything, depends on whether He wills us, His rational creatures, to accept some specific thing.

Since we are free, proof may be what WE need to obey Him, and therefore He would want to supply it.

3) "It's when things go opposite to the physical laws, is when one should raise their level of skepticism."

I believe that about ONE basically natural law of psychology.

a) a trickster cannot make a community recall events that no one in it ever saw happen
b) a trickster cannot make a community recall having had events from previous generations transmitted to them prior to meeting him
c) a trickster founding a community cannot hide from the community when he founded it.

To make a very simple example : if Joseph Smith founded Mormonism in 1820's and 1830's, he could not make Mormons believe they had existed at the American War of Independence. He could make them believe and did make them believe, they had pre-existed, among Nephites several centuries earlier, but he had to pretend to recover that history, he could not make them believe that was what they had remembered as they remembered George Washington.

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl You are obviously naïve to the power of tricksters.

There have been some honest ones who have used their knowledge to expose false and misleading religious charlatans, ........ namely James Randi and today Derren Brown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Derren_Brown_special)

Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have all used super naturalism as means to verify their belief. .........

They turn to things that seem to give evidence that only a supernatural god could do. ........ Like walk on water, raise up an iron axe from the bottom of a river with the wave of a stick .......

We KNOW those things are naturally impossible, ........ So those who are ignorant are easily persuaded when that person claims he is from god.

I saw a man walk across Thames River ........ Now, I don't know how he did it, but I can assure you trickery was involved. ....... Man cannot naturally walk on water. ....... So you KNOW it is impossible. And your not fooled into believing it.

Try watching some of Derren Browns shows he answers all those questions.

here is a video of " Fear and Faith" Starts about the 52:00 mark converting atheists. You will enjoy it.

[link omitted]°

This is how you tell the truth from the false ........ Whether it is natural miracle or an unnatural one. ..........

Unnatural ones need a lot of extraordinary evidence of which there is none other that a person saying it happen. = hearsay.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes "Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have all used super naturalism as means to verify their belief. .........

"They turn to things that seem to give evidence that only a supernatural god could do. ........ Like walk on water, raise up an iron axe from the bottom of a river with the wave of a stick ......."

In fact, Judaism as rejecting Christianity didn't do that, only pre-Christian Judaism. Which Christianity accepts as part of the own prehistory.

Islam and Mormonism also never did so. Even according to the own claims about Joseph Smith.

So, according to Christianity, only Christianity and pre-Christian Judaism should be able to show this.

What do we find? Only Christianity and pre-Christian Judaism even claim it.

"Try watching some of Derren Browns shows he answers all those questions."

I came in before the 50:00 mark, and I am not into Satanism.

Vade Retro.

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yeah, Derren also exposes satanists .... lol

And everything to do with the supernatural and paranormal.

I'm free from all your superstitious blood rituals and religiosity.

And I was happy to make some of these things clear for you!

Take care neighbor ........

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes Thank you very much for the kind concern, but it so happens that I haven't seen any proof of his having made any audience believe they had seen a miracle before he talked to them and he just recorded it.

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yeah, correct, however, the power of suggestion can convince people to believe even if there was no agency involved. And that is basically the main reason people are fooled into believing unnatural miracles. ....... They allow their minds to be persuaded because they have a strong urge to believe in the impossible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes "however, the power of suggestion can convince people to believe even if there was no agency involved."

I know examples can exist where:

• something they see is misinterpreted as a miracle
• something that's going on in their minds can be seen as a sign from God (by the way some things in one's minds could be signs from God outside such suggestions)
• they can be enticed to believe the guy speaking to them has or naturally or supernaturally knows of people who have seen miracles elsewhere.

I do not know of any example where any group has been persuaded they recall something from earlier which wasn't there in their minds before.

Like ten people who meet for the first time cannot be persuaded they have common memories over the last ten years, and so also not their common memories involve a miracle.

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your regressing from the original issue.

Basically the issue is the difference between natural miracles as opposed to unnatural miracles. ........

Unnatural miracles are employed by those claiming to have special powers or a message from god. (Derren Brown was just an example of how a person could accomplish that!)

Usually to impress their readers or listeners some form of unnatural miracle is attributed to the messenger. Supposedly this gives authority to them because only these unnatural miracles can be attributed to a supernatural god. ........

Hence, gullible sincere people are fooled into believing the story.

Walking on water and raising iron axes from the bottom of a river are unnatural miracles used as embellishments to give some authority to their story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes "Your regressing from the original issue."

No, I was all the time contesting your view of it.

"natural miracles as opposed to unnatural miracles."

Already a misnomer when you consider "supernatural" as "unnatural" ... if sth comes from the author of nature, it is never unnatural, but as He is supernatural, so can it be.

"Usually to impress their readers or listeners some form of unnatural miracle is attributed to the messenger."

You are being highly vague about what I consider the main issue.

Suppose Paul of Tarsis was no saint and he founded Christianity in the sixties in Rome. He could conceivably have got away with saying "I cured people who touched my clothes with handkerchiefs" but he could not have got away with saying "and those people ten years ago" (Haydock poses Acts 19 in 54) "formed churches that I taught" when the audience knew they were the first church he was forming.

He could also not have persuaded people back in Asia to recall they had touched his clothes with handkerchiefs and aprons and obtained cures that way, when they in fact hadn't and therefore had no such memory.

"Hence, gullible sincere people are fooled into believing the story."

The degree of gullibility YOU suppose exists, if what you say is analysed, really WOULD amount to a totally unnatural miracle of psychology. Your understanding of how gullible people work seems to be simply "they don't think like me, they believe the supernatural" ... as if being a strict naturalist preserved you from gullibility!

"used as embellishments to give some authority to their story."

You fail to analyse WHEN the story is first told with such an embellishment and HOW that relates to the supposed witnesses of the original events.

If the original audience of the embellishments are too far away, they would ask "why did we never hear this before?" - if they are too close "why don't we check?" - you pretend there is a middle ground, where it would still be recent enough for an audience to explain never hearing of it before by its being recent, but for some reason, the distance is too great to bother to check.

To return to Asia, where some saw Paul in times comparable to when they saw Peter or Andrew ... if his clothes didn't convey healing powers to handkerchiefs, why did these people not just go "WHAT???" when they came to read Acts?

It's not just that people in Rome would be able to check the claims, but people in connection with the claim would be able to check it had come to exist. If I told you "remember that time when you shook hands with Winston Churchill?" I think you would very quickly go "WHAT???" in a very similar way and very understandably so.

None of the dupes of Mohammed or Joseph Smith or momentary dupes of Derren Brown would ever have been as far duped as THAT gullibility you credit them with if they didn't.

Dudley Barnes

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl If you believe people were healed just by touching a handkerchief you admit your gullibility!

No more needs to be said!

Take care neighbor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Barnes And you admit being gullible to the guys whose trick it is to consider acceptance of supernatural claims gullibility ...

You are free to quite the conversation.

Have a nice day.

Notes:

* Not sure all of the items in the link were reproduced correctly after getting %2 instead of %2F into / and then removing the F ...

** Most YEC myself included would consider that many of the events of the Flood were volcanic eruptions.

*** Now? Yes. Always for 70,000 years? Or otherwise after the Flood?

° Contains Satanism.

Geocentrism Defended Against FrJerome Zeiler

Geocentrism defended,
A against reasons Geocentrism Defended Against FrJerome Zeiler
B against ad hominems Geocentrism vs "Simon Skinner"

FrJerome Zeiler

20.VIII.2023

12th Lord's Day after Pentecost

Two things in support of heliocentrism:
1. With the exception of Venus (due to the greenhouse effect) the mean temperature of the planets is as follows: sun at center: 2nd hottest planet, 1st hottest planet (due to the greenhouse effect), 3rd hottest planet, 4th hottest planet, 5th hottest planet, 6th hottest planet, 7th hottest planet, 8th hottest planet, 9th hottest planet. Geocentrists cannot begin to explain this. According to geocentrism, the sun must be between Venus and Mars. So Venus should be hottest (due to the greenhouse effect) and Mars should be second hottest, contrary to NASA's local measurements.
2. If Isaac Newton is correct, the fact that Jupiter orbits the earth (according to the geocentric model) violates the law of gravity. Because Jupiter has a mass that is 318 times that of the earth. And a body of larger mass cannot orbit a body of smaller mass according to Newton's laws.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"1. With the exception of Venus (due to the greenhouse effect) the mean temperature of the planets is as follows: sun at center: 2nd hottest planet, 1st hottest planet (due to the greenhouse effect), 3rd hottest planet, 4th hottest planet, 5th hottest planet, 6th hottest planet, 7th hottest planet, 8th hottest planet, 9th hottest planet. Geocentrists cannot begin to explain this. According to geocentrism, the sun must be between Venus and Mars. So Venus should be hottest (due to the greenhouse effect) and Mars should be second hottest, contrary to NASA's local measurements."

First, what does the Ptolemaic system (which I don't believe) actually say?

It doesn't say the Sun is between Venus and Mars, it says the Sun is in a sphere that is between the spheres of Venus and Mars. As often as Mars is far from Sun in its spheres, like on opposite sides of Earth, Mars would be further from the Sun.

Now, the clincher is, most Geocentrics today (me included) are not Ptolemaics, we are more or less Tychonian. I am Tychonian-Ricciolian, Sungenis is neo-Tychonian. Either view, the Sun is epicentre for all planets except the Moon (which is directly centred on the actual centre), and therefore each planet has a typical range of distances from the Sun, and some would when aligning on the Earth side come between Sun and Earth (in order Mercury, Venus), some would aligne outside Earth, opposite the Sun (Mars, asteroid belt, Jupiter and so on).

Problem solved.

"2. If Isaac Newton is correct, the fact that Jupiter orbits the earth (according to the geocentric model) violates the law of gravity. Because Jupiter has a mass that is 318 times that of the earth. And a body of larger mass cannot orbit a body of smaller mass according to Newton's laws."

The remark supposes that the only things affecting orbits are gravity.

This is more than Newton being correct about gravity, this also involves one of two propositions very well outside his (purported) scope:

a) God and angels don't exist
b) God and angels don't meddle with celestial bodies, but leave them working out their physics like automata.

The former is directly opposed to the Christian faith, and the latter is not supported by it and basically a weakened form of the former.

The Sun doesn't orbit Earth because Earth is heavier, but because an angel moves it along the Zodiac over the year, and it participates in a daily motion God is giving the univers around Earth each day.

Problem solved.

Jez Austin

Hans-Georg Lundahl But isn't it interesting that the motion of the planets can be explained & predicted without reference to the meddling of angels?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Not after all the studies of the motions.

The Heliocentric people who would want to explain it EXCLUSIVELY without the "meddling" of the angels have had so much time to study the regular movements, they'd be pretty incompetent if they were predicting something different from the known movements.

2) There is the fudge factor of the masses of the sun and earth and planets.

There is no independent weighing of any of them. Each is consider to have its mass known from the movements, the orbits, and the orbits are predicted from the so "known" masses.

3) Your "meddling" presupposes that God created astronomic objects to work on their own, and that angels moving them would involve "meddling" - the positions of Thomas and Riccioli agree that the angelic movers are what God meant for the regular movements.

All of them, according to Riccioli, or all except the daily motion of heaven (done directly by God) according to Thomas.

4) The things predicted as orbits are predicted as Heliocentric (roughly speaking, one focus of an ellipse situated usually in the Sun but not the centre of the Sun, and in the case of Jupiter even outside the Sun). What we see are Tychonic-Ricciolean orbits. So, the angelic explanation matches what we directly see better.

Four other answers to FrJerome Zeiler

the latter two by admins, this order to accomodate the distinction

A

Michal Paszkiewicz

This would only be true in a very simplistic understanding of the Ptolemaic model. The Ptolemaic epicycles were almost as large as the deferent, so the orbits actually interweaved. Given today's known parameters, the Ptolemaic model could be constructed such that the order of distances of planets from the Sun matches their order of surface temperature.

But in the late 16th century, the Tychonic model took over as the Geocentric option - the non-Earth planets orbited the Sun, which orbited the Earth. The distance order from the Sun was corrected at that time.

Then the Tychonic model was improved. For example, Riccioli added elliptic orbits to a Tychonic model.

Contemporary academic Geocentrics however have to account for the wider knowledge of the universe. They will rather resort to either Mach's principle, or to an alignment of all the celestial objects preserving Earth as the centre.

B

Steve Szabo

> a body of larger mass cannot orbit a body of smaller mass according to Newton's law

Newton didn't account for the dynamics of the gravity of the entire Unvierse that Ernst Mach later worked out. See Luka Popov's 2013 papers on Orbital mechanics and Dynamics:

Luka Popov January 2013 - "Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6045 -> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6045.pdf
Luka Popov - April 2013 - "The Dynamical Description of the Geocentric Universe"
Abstract : https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7290v1 -> PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7290v1.pdf

C

Scott Blacker

Admin

And on a flip side for starters sometimes NASA use Geostationary 0.0.0 refrence frame to launch rockets.

D

Johnny Proctor

Admin

So disappointing that a priest defers to the opinions and unprovable theories of atheists and secular scientists above the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Such is the scourge of Modernism!

Number Symbolism in Genesis 5?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ussher III · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Numeric Symbolism in Genesis 5 Patriarchs? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Number Symbolism in Genesis 5? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ages or Names Symbolic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.VIII.2023

Has anyone else here come across this one?

"Patriarcal ages are not meant to be taken literally, as it is number symbolism" ...

If so, how did you respond?

My own response when meeting it today [a few days earlier] was:

Are you aware that most of Jewish numerology is actually post-Christian speculation?

In other words, it cannot realistically be taken as back-drop for how the text was formed.

I

Darrell Wilson

Meilleur contributeur

This sounds like a feeble attempt to change the word of God to fit someone's "theology".

II

Doug Loomis

My response is figurative, smigurative.

III

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

If you are going to ..read..THE BIBLE..literally..then you dont need God anymore..

Diana Neuman

Lexie A'lviore what does this mean?

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Diana Neuman some YEC said..THE BIBLE..should be read..literally

Diana Neuman

Lexie A'lviore , yes. I generally agree. Some parts are obviously figurative, like Song of Solomon. But I'd rather take literally any parts that reasonably can be.

Mirth Johnson

Diana Neuman the sermon on the mount can literally be, but Christians choose not to

IV

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

I think that is what the enemy wanted..read..THE BIBLE..literally..Dont rely on God..trust those men..who are using their..cultural lenses..in interpreting THE BIBLE......?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

What's your exact point?

Some older cultural lenses being for numeric symbolism in the patriarcal ages?

Well, detect it.

V

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

As you say, “most” numerology is later but that doesn’t prove the ages are not also chosen for their numerical significance.

The best starting point is probably other ancient genealogies, specifically the Sumerian King’s List. Determine the meaning of this and you have likely identified the meaning of the antediluvian genealogies.

The Kings List also has super human ages. The purpose of the King’s List was to legitimize the current king as inheriting “the” kingship God gave humanity.

There ‘may’ be numerological significance. The 8 antediluvian Kings and the 8 patriarchs between Adam and Noah BOTH have ages that sum close to 6 thousand, 6 hundred, 6 ten. Though of course the Sumerian list uses base-60.

Not sure if that is coincidence; just know some scholars claim it is not accidental.

One answer

to above, and another, for now B, but before that, A, his resumé, and my answer to that. He answered it, and so I answered that.

A

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

TLDR: the ages themselves likely were never meant to construct a timeline of the past. But the time between when the kingship descended from heaven and when the great flood came was seen as a complete “age” of time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Benjamin Hanson "the ages themselves likely were never meant to construct a timeline of the past."

Why not, if the pre-Flood rulers in the Sumerian version were deified?

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl We’re the Sumerian rulers deified? Honestly do not know. A common theme I see in comparing Genesis to other ancient texts is that Genesis largely de-mythologizes these earlier stories. I take this as Genesis operating (at least in part) as a polemic against the pagan myths that the Israelites grew up learning.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Benjamin Hanson "Honestly do not know."

With such lifespans, it stands to reason they were.

"A common theme I see in comparing Genesis to other ancient texts is that Genesis largely de-mythologizes these earlier stories."

A common theme among unbelievers a k a Modernists.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Benjamin Hanson There is no figurative meaning attached to the Sumerian king list.

There is a reasoning that the Sumerian King list has its ages due to erroneous reading of number symbols denoting the rounded ages of those 8 patriarchs. And misreading further by taking positional counting to the wrong power of 60, in absence of a zero symbol.

In other words, Genesis 5 would contain literal history, Sumerian King list a fake reading of it to suit an agenda of suiting the pre-Flood rulers as Adam to Tubal-Cain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Benjamin Hanson "BOTH have ages that sum close to 6 thousand, 6 hundred, 6 ten"

That's actually just the Sumerian reading, with the rounding, but before the misreading. The sum in Genesis 5 is 6695.

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg LundahlYou may be more familiar than me. What I recall reading is that the biblical record sums to 6 thousands 6 hundreds 6 tens IF you skip the one’s place. Whether one copied the other or both derived this 6-6-6 notion from a common cultural numerology I am unsure.

At any rate I am not sure what the numerological meaning would even be (I either Biblical or Sumerian interpretation). Would 666 mean the antediluvian world was bad or that it was cut short before it reached a fullness?

What is the purpose of the ages? If Moses excluded them what would we be missing? Most important would be the sense that humanity has since gained a greater sense of mortality, living fewer years, since the flood. I don’t think the exact ages carry any meaning so much as their general largeness. I am comfortable allowing the exact ages to carry a symbolic meaning, but (not knowing that meaning) I wouldn’t preach it.

I think YEC doesn’t (and shouldn’t) hang upon this single passage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

"the biblical record sums to 6 thousands 6 hundreds 6 tens IF you skip the one’s place."

Big if. Or some similar rounding. Still big if.

The Sumerians do, the Hebrews don't.

"Would 666 mean the antediluvian world was bad or that it was cut short before it reached a fullness?"

Not important, since the Hebrew sum of ages is not that kind of number. 6695 is another number.*

"What is the purpose of the ages? If Moses excluded them what would we be missing?"

Genesis 5 and 11,
1) given different text versions, shows there were between 2000 and 3500 years from when Adam was created and when Moses was visiting a Pharao;
2) irrespective of text versions, shows, the mainly ante-diluvian generations were able to live to 900 and past, the mainly post-diluvian ones dwindled from 600 to 175
3) given the overlaps of generations, they show that Moses or at least Abraham, could have the Genesis 3 account in an oral tradition comparable to one of 200 - 400 years in normal post-Flood lifepans.

* (footnote)

6695 is adding up, as if serialised, total years of Seth to Lamech in Genesis 5. Here are a few variants on adding up, Genesis 5 and 11, I don't spot any number symbolism anywhere in the other "as if serialised" totals either:

Genesis 5 (up to Lamech in the first version)
930 + 912 + 905 + 910 + 895 + 962 + 365 + 969 + 777 = 7625
7625 - 930 = 6695 without Adam
7625 + 950 = 8575 with Noah

Genesis 11
600 + 338 + 433 + 464 + 239 + 239 + 230 + 148 + 205 = 2896
2896 + 950 = 3846 with Noah
2896 + 175 = 3071 with Abraham
2896 + 950 + 175 = 4021 with Noah and Abraham
2896 + 460 = 3356 with second Cainan
3846 + 460 = 4306 with second Cainan and Noah
3071 + 460 = 3531 with second Cainan and Abraham
4021 + 460 = 4481 with second Cainan and Noah and Abraham

It can be added, Sumerian Kinglist actually serialised their 8 pre-Flood kings, rounded versions of Seth to Lamech in year counts, probably more like Adam to Cainite Lamech or Cain to Tubal-Cain, in spirit. The numbers - inflated by multiplication by 60 - are taken as regnal lengths, not lifespans.

VI

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg LundahlTo be sure, the primary break between Genesis and other cosmogonies of the Ancient Near East is monotheism, the sovereignty of YHWH over all.

But part of this is taking the lesser gods and turning them into natural features (the earth, seas, greater and lesser lights, etc are no longer divine) and taking the demigods (the Sumerian kings you mentioned as well as the Apkallu and other such beings) and turning them into men.

What the pagans saw as a whole host of beings of various powers and responsibilities, Moses (rightly) saw as a natural world under the governance of a single, almighty God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Benjamin Hanson You have fairly righly assessed the theological difference between Genesis and pagans.

But you forget there is a big difference between saying Moses had access to Flood accounts and similar independently of Sumerians, from the correct sources, and therefore they are true history, and saying he or someone later on (candidates would get as far away from him as Ezra) got a story from them, which was not true, which was idolatrous, and then just amended the idolatrous part, and took the rest from what amounts to a very dubious source.

"a whole host of beings of various powers and responsibilities"

Angels can have responsabilities UNDER God commanding them, for instance over heavenly bodies.

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl the theory that Moses had different or “correct” sources compared to the pagans is one for which I have not yet seen strong evidence.

All pre-Mosaic antediluvian stories that have been discovered are primarily polytheistic. This drives my own suspicion that Genesis is, at least in part, a polemic. It also begs incredulity to believe that (lost? hidden?) monotheistic versions of the stories existed and were copied and were preserved for over a thousand years by societies which themselves were not monotheistic.

As stated, the primary difference between Genesis and the pagan stories is the theological framework in which the stories are told. The “source” for that framework is most likely Moses’s own close relationship with YHWH. This is his contribution. If you say both the stories and the theology are pre-Mosaic then you are really stripping Moses of any authorship role and you might as well say Ezra wrote it as Moses.

For some reason we find it easier to identify the theology of Paul’s epistles as an outflow of Paul’s ministry and his walk with God. In like manner the theology of Genesis is also constructed out of Moses’s ministry and walk with God. These documents were not written without occasion, they were written to guide and direct the people Paul and Moses were called to serve.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Benjamin Hanson "All pre-Mosaic antediluvian stories that have been discovered are primarily polytheistic. "

How pre-Mosaic are they?

I recall the oldest tablets we have as being dated to c. 1800 BC.

That carbon date (yes, wool around tablets contain carbon unlike the clay, and other adjacent objects could also be involved) would correspond to about when Moses was born (as per the then pharao was Sesostris III, whose coffin is dated to 1838 BC).

And Moses never went to Mesopotamia anyway - your theory works lots better for those denying Moses and affirming Ezra instead wrote the book of Genesis.

"the theory that Moses had different or “correct” sources compared to the pagans is one for which I have not yet seen strong evidence."

How about Genesis 11 giving a sufficiently low count of "minimally overlapping generations" between Flood and Abraham?

That's how Haydock reasons about Genesis 3 events.

// Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H. //

Those were Moses' sources, a straight-on family tradition.

The Mesopotamian scribes, by contrast, had to do with conflicting traditions, attempted compromises, effective and rejected compromises in a much bigger society which therefore falsified the primeval memories, on top of which, they had theological reasons to falsify the memories.

Like Babylonians wanted the Flood to be sent by a "ruler god" and the Ark to be planned by a "trickster god" and had the brothers Enlil and Enki or Marduk and Ea in the two roles.

I think this is fairly strong evidence that Moses built on better sources than the pagans are providing us with.

"If you say both the stories and the theology are pre-Mosaic then you are really stripping Moses of any authorship role and you might as well say Ezra wrote it as Moses."

Not if Moses was their final redactor, like St. Luke was that of lots of witnesses, and the point is, by Ezra's time, the tradition would have had more time to get obfuscated. Precisely like you cannot substitute a scribe in Constantine's time for St. Luke.

Plus, Moses added one piece apart from the final ordering to the things he had received - the six day account of which he had a vision in Sinai.

Plus, you are downgrading Moses' honesty (in unrealistic ways) by pretending he drew on pagan and suspect stories and only corrected the theology in them.

PLUS so many things lack to Pagans - Abel and Cain, Tower of Babel being two of them, and most pagans, including all except Zoroastrians, a primeval couple too.

VII

Eli Whitney

The ages are actual lifespans, no matter how much they want to believe it is not so.

VIII

continuing with Lexie A'lviore

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore if you do you not take it literally, you are calling God a liar.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Kyle Bower nope...i believe in God

I dont believe in your wrong interpretation

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore twisting scripture to fit your worldly beliefs is not Christian.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Kyle Bower PRECISELY...so dont do it..

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore
😆😂🤣

I am the one taking scripture for what it says the way God intended, but I am the one twisting it. 👌

Way to twist my comment just like you twist scripture.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Kyle Bower nope..all you did..make false accusations..you did not give a verse..

Show me a verse..that say

AND GOD SAID.. I CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS...then you can laugh

JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH

Kyle Bower thanks for proving my point

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore lol you’ve proved my point. Twisting once again. read Gen 1. The Hebrew word that is used for day is Yom. When Yom is used with evening and morning, it ALWAYS means a 24 hour period. It’s important to know the original translation.

Lexie A'lviore you’ve got nothing.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Kyle Bower nope..you ve got nothing

AGAIN..show me a verse that say

AND GOD SAID....I CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS...

Kyle Bower JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH..

some people will laugh...just because they cant prove their hypothesis...twisting the scriptures..then they will imitate unbelievers and laugh...just like unbelievers from the days of Noah

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore you must not have spent much time reading scripture. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:16‬ the only way to get an old age for Earth is with extra biblical sources. It is obvious that it was created by God in 6 days, because that is what scripture says. You are making the opposite claim. Show me where in scripture the Earth and the rest of creation took longer than 6 days.

[...] “JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH.. some people will laugh...just because they cant prove their hypothesis...twisting the scriptures..then they will imitate unbelievers and laugh...just like unbelievers from the days of Noah”…

The irony of your comment is both hilarious and sad at the same time.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Kyle Bower you must spent..a lot of time..reading

But you cant see it...blinded by your lord..the one commanded you to laugh at people..lord of those people laughing at Noah

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore you’re the one laughing at Truth. You contradict the Bible and have the nerve to say I am twisting scripture?…. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? lol you can’t make this stuff up.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Kyle Bower you are the one putting haha emojis.using the unbeliever s LOL..then you have the nerve to say i am the one laughing..?

Show me a man who are using LOL and i will show you a false christian

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore now you’re equating the laughing emoji with a non-believer?… Another ridiculous comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Lexie A'lviore Have you considered Exodus 20?

1 And the Lord spoke all these words: " .... 8 Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. 10 But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it."

Or, actually neutral between "one moment" and "six literal days" but definitely no friend to "days = ages of millions of years" - here:

5 To whom Jesus answering, said: "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore you are saying that if you use a laughing emoji they are a false Christian. That is ridiculous. God made humor. Take it up with him.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl AGAIN...THERE IS NO VERSE THAT SAY

AND GOD SAID....I CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS

GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME...HE WAS NOT A SLAVE OF YOUR 24 HOUR/DAY...........?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

No, but He referenced it in Exodus 20:11.

Again, Mark 10:6 is irrelevant for the debate days vs one moment, but it cuts out millions of years alright.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl THE BIBLE is clear

GOD NEVER SAID...HE CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS..some people will try to imposed their beliefs in the scriptures...implying God was a slave of their 24hour/ day...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Lexie A'lviore In Exodus 20, God was talking of OUR normal days and of OUR normal work week.

Implying that working six NORMAL days (mornings 24 h apart) and resting one NORMAL day (morning 24 h after morning of day six) corresponded to what HE had done in Creation week.

Stop lying about the Bible.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl stop lying about the BIBLE?

Show me the verse..that say

And GOD said...I CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS...

Stop implying that God was a slave of your 24 hour

He is outside of time..blindness makes you a believer of false things..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Lexie A'lviore That God is outside of time does not mean His actions about creation are outside of time, since creation is NOT outside time.

Did God part the Red Sea during the Exodus, or can one not pin point when He did it, since He's outside of time? Did Jesus rise on the Third Day, or can one not pinpoint it, since He's outside of time? Did God call Abraham when he was 75 years old, or can one not pinpoint it, since God is outside of time? Did God provide Abraham miraculously with the son Isaac when he was 100 years old, or can one not pinpoint it, since He is outside of time?

Yes, God is outside of time, but what He does about created things is not, since these created things are not outside of time.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl Did God say

And there was morning and evening....in Genesis 1:?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Lexie A'lviore No, God said "and there was evening and morning"

in each case after the work of creation, so, one of the days would :

1) start in the morning (except day 1 starting on earth in the dark)
2) continue in the work of creation (nearly identic to morning for day 1)
3) then finish with evening and following morning.

Now, my turn.

Suppose you could extend the days to millions of years (contrary to Exodus 20, contrary to Mark 10:6). How does that change that between Adam, the very first man, and Abraham, there are 2000 - 3000+ years according to Genesis 5 and 11?

My question was actually not about the creation days, but about the genealogies in Genesis 5 (and by extension 11), since someone had made a claim, these are not chronological but only symbolical statements.

And man, having lifespans in time, actually is tied to normal years. Like 930 for Adam.

Even More?

FB "Removing Spam" From Back in 2019! · Even More? · Quora Too?

This time, after taking the screenshot, I got no chance of appealing, the pop-up window was gone after I finished making the image, and it wasn't coming back, however, I can refer to the post that I shared on - very obviously - a relevant group.

Creation vs. Evolution : Ambiguous Sentence Found
Wednesday 23 Octobre 2019, Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/10/ambiguous-sentence-found.html

Is it because FB only showed the pop-up once, or is it because some admin on the cyber clicked the button I didn't intend to click?/HGL

PS, it is not the same that was turned down after review, I checked./HGL

PPS, here is another item:

PPPS - and another:

It gives a link, purportedly to taking measures of proving the account is mine, I'll copy the link and log out of both blog and FB before using it, and see if it is anywhere like legit, or a hacker./HGL

PPPPS - seems it was a hacker, here is where the link led to:

PPPPPS - the account seems to either belong to a hacker or have been hacked, I think the latter:

after lots of scrolling:

Every post after these two was identic, and all of them were from c. 24 h. ago. Too many not to have been automated./HGL

FB "Removing Spam" From Back in 2019!

FB "Removing Spam" From Back in 2019! · Even More? · Quora Too?

I gave an offer that exists, namely of republishing my blog posts in commercial form. The URL's did not redirect. I did not request anyone to interact with the link by sharing or liking prior to accessing it. And so on for all the rest of the rigmarole.

Here is the terms of my offer:

A little note on further use conditions:*
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

Here is a list of blogs to which it applies:

Creation vs. Evolution : Blogs by same author
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/blogs-by-same-author.html

These are the exact same links I shared back in 2015, 19th of July. It is not fraudulent that my offer is on the terms given in the first link, and it is not fraudulent that it applies directly to most of the blogs given in the second link. Both propositions are the exact truth. Disputing the first is disputing my rights of authorship and creative property. Disputing the second is disputing the fact of my authorship and my work already done.

If the removal was automatic, it is because AI is incompetent to do juridics. If the removal was done manually, it is because the person held me in dislike or contempt.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Day after St. Bartholomew
25.VIII.2023