- 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.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire