HGL's F.B. writings: septembre 2023

jeudi 28 septembre 2023

Defending and Explaining St. Thomas to some Orthodox

Or at least one or two of them are, Alex Coleman and probably Brandon Igler.

Alex Coleman
25.IX.2023: Tertullian held that the heart is the location of the human soul. Thus, he was a follower of Aristotle. The sage of Carthage was wrong to charge Plato with being the father of all heresies. That title rightly belongs to the tutor of Alexander.

Tertullian held that Christ is not eternally begotten from the Father. Whereas the Platonist, St. Justin Martyr, held to the eternal generation of the Son.
I
Brandon Igler: Alex Coleman I have known if several Baptist who deny the eternal generation of the Son, as well. Ironically the guy was a scripture scholar. I guess Sola Scriptura can’t answer the most basic principles of Trinitarian and Christological wonder.
John-Paul Beaumont: Alex Coleman where does he say that may I ask?
Alex Coleman: John-Paul Beaumont. In his Dialogue with Trypho, I think. I cannot recall with certitude. As regards Tertullian, I believe he states his view in Against Praxeas.
Alex Coleman: Brandon Igler. The 18th century English Protestant scholar, John Gill, wrote a work defending the Holy Trinity. I would like to see how the Trinity can be adequately defended without reference to the Holy Fathers. I would like to read that work at some point. Gill frequently quotes rabbinic sources in his biblical commentaries but rarely cites the Church Fathers.
Brandon Igler: Alex Coleman this is a mistake that most evangelical make today, they would rather quote rabbis than Christians. Catholics do this as well. I think I heard Jay Dyer do a breakdown where he said that Thomas Aquinas even denounced St John of Damask and sighted Moses Maimonides in his place in defense of strict monotheism. I may be wrong on the topic but I chuckled because that is so wild to denounce one of the most brilliant minds within the Church and really on earth, and side with Maimonides. I remember when I was taking my Judaic studies more serious, I was recommended to read the guide for the perplexed and it’s basically just Aristotle, I didn’t read much of it. Long story short, This fact just piggybacks your theory that you see Platonist and Aristotelian thought running parallel throughout history.
Alex Coleman: Brandon Igler. Thank you for that insight. We are picking up bread crumbs on a trail. On the trail of the assassins, eh Timothy Kevin Ready? More will be revealed........
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Brandon Igler "I heard Jay Dyer do a breakdown where he said that Thomas Aquinas even denounced St John of Damask and sighted Moses Maimonides in his place in defense of strict monotheism"

I'd very much like to know where Jay Dyer got that from.
Brandon Igler: Hans-Georg Lundahl it would have to be on one of Thomas’s apologetics for divine simplicity. I haven’t read the summa but I’m sure it’s in that. Possibly. Hope that helps
Alex Coleman: In Orthodoxy, St. Justin Martyr is referred to as St. Justin the Philosopher.
Brandon Igler: Alex Coleman for good reason

Alex Coleman when I first came across the idea of Logos Spermatikos and went back and read the Torah and the Gospels, from the I AM to the Incarnation of our Lord, I was in pieces. Everything made sense and now when I read anything it either lines up with Christ or it is indeed Foolishness. All of the Wisdom literature came alive again and especially his dialog with Pilate “Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

Alex Coleman think of Israel, the wrestling with God, Wisdom, and the gentile tradition of Philosophy, the Brotherly love of wisdom. It’s beautiful
John-Paul Beaumont: Alex Coleman thanks I’ll have a look!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Brandon Igler "Question 3. The simplicity of God" in the Summa - I did an F search for "Dam" and found nothing. Damascene or of Damascus is not in that question.
Brandon Igler: Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah, I haven’t read the summa. Wouldn’t mind reading it some day just to understand their position or reasoning better. This quote may not even be in the summa, I’m just assuming it would be.
Peter Gilbert: Hans-Georg Lundahl Thomas Aquinas cites Maimonides especially in his tractate on Creation; he agrees with Maimonides (following Aristotle) that reason does not rule out an eternal creation, but at the same time (not following Aristotle) reason does not necessitate an eternal creation; if we hold that there is a temporal beginning to creation, it is because that is something revealed to us.

As for disagreeing with St. John of Damascus, this probably refers to the Damascene's statement that "We do not say that the Spirit is 'from' the Son." On that point, Aquinas says, the Damascene was simply wrong.
Brandon Igler: Peter Gilbert thank you. I wasn’t familiar with all the citations, I just heard it discussed on one of Jay Dyers talks about Latin Theology.
Alex Coleman: Peter Gilbert. What exactly is meant by, eternal creation, such that Aristotle believed that reason requires it?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Peter Gilbert "On that point, Aquinas says, the Damascene was simply wrong."

On that point.

And on that point he follows Western Patristics, which reaches back well before St. John of Damascus.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Alex Coleman If you'll excuse me bumping in:

"eternal creation, such that Aristotle believed that reason requires it"

Eternal creation means that the universe has always existed, and that God has always provided its existence, ab aeterno, with no beginning.

Aristotle did not figure out why God would chose to create or chose anything, God being totally blissful, he considered God would be incapable (from that simple fact) of any kind of initiative. So, he considered the universe eternally comes into being by its matter adapting to God by a kind of love or longing for His inattainable perfection.

On this point, St. Thomas considered that we know from Revelation that Aristotle was wrong, while St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus considered we can know even from reason that the universe had a beginning, when God made an actual initiative to create it or some other more putting it from non-being into being.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. If the universe is eternal, how then is God the Prime Mover? St. Bonaventure and Scotus were Platonists. Note that St. Gregory Palamas had the same essential system as Duns Scotus.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Alex Coleman God is prime mover, because He is the principal mover of the daily motion of the universe around Earth.

This is how Riccioli interpreted prima via.

To Aristotle this means, the beauty of God, without any decision on His part, makes the universe dance around Earth, and first of all the sphere of the fix stars.

To St. Thomas this means, God is consciously and by divine fiat moving the sphere of the fix stars around earth each day, which then drags the sphere of Saturn with it, which then drags Jupiter along, and then Mars, and then Sun, Mercury, Venus, Moon, and finally aptmospheres and seas.

St. Thomas could have explained the Foucault pendulum as some kind of participation in this daily motion. I do so. Not believing spheres are solid bodies, I still believe the heavenly bodies are within an aether, which is the kind of substance that space consists of, as well as being the kind of substance of which electromagnetic rays are ripples and so on. As opposite parts of this aether space remain opposite, and as parts of this aether space at a given height above earth remain that height (though the heavenly bodies may vary in height, apogee and perigee), this means the aether forming this space has a kind of solidity corresponding to the concept of stereoma.

Prime mover and creator in time are two different concepts.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. Yet if the universe is eternal, so must be it's motion. If the universe has always existed, then the motion within it must be perpetual. Where is there, thus, any place for a first cause?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: The question is not about earlier cause vs later effect, but about contemporary cause and contemporary effect.

Like when you hold a hammer and bang with it, your hand is cause of the hammer moving, and the hammer moving is cause of some metal being hammered, even if they happen at the same time.

First cause does not equal kalam.
II
Ernesto Raimondi: Beyond the objections to philosophizing Christianity that Mr. Ostrowski and Mr. Leonardi gave above, which I largely agree with, the very consideration of the soul being located in a particular organ, rather understanding the soul as the spiritual dimension of the body which animates it, and thus in/with the whole body, strikes me as quite bizarre. It doesn't seem to be compatible with anything I've learned from Christians about the relationship of the body and soul. Always the Christians I've known (aside from the neo-Gnostic types who see the eschaton as strictly spiritual) have indicated to me that they understood the soul to be in a natural union with the body, and the soul is localized because of this union, so that its location is the body, not one particular part of the body.

In addition to it seeming to be an aberrant belief, I think this notion of the "location of the soul" is in danger of running into the sorts of conceptual problems that Descartes ran into with his mind-body dualism, and the pineal gland theory of the communication of the two. If the soul is not embodied, is not what gives the body form by being its animative principle, then how do we explain the communication between the body and the soul? Descartes had to come up with very odd ideas about animal spirits in order to give an explanation, and generally it's understood to not even have been a good one.
Alex Coleman: Ernesto Raimondi. I believe that Tertullian is not speaking of a physical location but rather as to what constitutes the essence of the human being. Given that he is arguing in the treatise for the corporeality of the soul as a general principle and that he states elsewhere in the treatise that the soul fills the whole body, this stands as evidence for my assertion.
Ernesto Raimondi: Alex Coleman The idea of a part being the essence of a composite doesn't sound right to me. Essence is supposed to give the "what-it-is", so to speak. If we say "central muscular organ that pumps blood throughout a fleshy body", then we have one account of what a heart is. One conventional account of the essence of human being is "rational animal". How a heart or a head could give us this for the human being, I can't begin to imagine.

The only way I could see this approach making sense would be if Tertullian were speaking of the heart and the head in a symbolic/spiritual sense. If that's the case, then of course the critique I gave above is not relevant. On the other hand, if we're talking about the heart and the head in figurative senses, I also don't see why either one could not be plausible candidates for giving the essence of human being. Is this what you were objecting to in the first place, the figurative heart being the essence of the human being? If so, what is your problem with this view?
Alex Coleman: Ernesto Raimondi. Yes, I believe he was speaking in a symbolic fashion. My objection is that by affirming that the essence of man is heart, Tertullian is implicitly denying that man is made in the image of God. The problem is that Tertullian was a materialist and argued elsewhere in the treatise that being made in the image of God means nothing more than that we are representative of His physical shape. Being a rational animal is not to be in the image of God. It is merely to be a beast with the added attribute of instrumental reason. Aristotle sees no qualitative distinction between man and animal only a quantitative one.
Ernesto Raimondi: Alex Coleman I know that Tertullian was a heretic, but the issue isn't just with his views. What you've effectively said is that Aristotelianism is the font of all heresies. In this particular matter (the essence of human being), you seem to be setting up a dichotomy of Platonist and Aristotelian views of the human essence, the former being linked to head symbology, and the latter to heart symbology. Further, you've now elaborated that the latter view implicitly denies Man being made in the image of God. Can you explain how the heart account implicitly denies Man being made in the image of God, while the head account does not?
Alex Coleman: Ernesto Raimondi. For Plato, man is defined by his capacity to grasp the Forms. In Christian Platonism, the Forms are ideas in the mind of God. Thus, man is uniquely connected to the mind of God, in Platonism. "Man is the creature who desires to know. Thus, the delight that he takes in the senses." Thus Aristotle locates the capacity of man to obtain knowledge within the confines of sense-perception. We share sensation with the beasts. Thus, God commands that we care for them and protect them. For Plato, the Forms are the ultimate reality and form is always separate from matter but linked through participation. For Aristotle, form is always united to matter. His idea of concept formation is identical to that of Hume.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: For Christian Aristotelics, forms have three realities.

Before the thing, in God's mind, in the thing, and after the thing in man's mind.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. Yes, but Aristotle himself did not hold to such a view. Aquinas's attempt to baptize Aristotle, was ultimately, an exercise in futility.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: No, because he made a valid philosophy better than Aristotle's.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. Perhaps, in his zeal to baptize Aristotle, Aquinas misunderstood him........
Hans-Georg Lundahl: No, Aquinas certainly did understand Aristotle.

When he credits Aristotle with an error, he is usually showing how Aristotle could have avoided it by applying his own principles more consistently.
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. Perhaps Aquinas interpreted Aristotle in a manner such the Stagyrite would be rendered acceptable to Christians, despite the essential heresy of his teachings.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: There is no "essential heresy of his teachings"

There are his teachings, and there are heresies that are in them and which St. Thomas upfront called out as lapses on the part of Aristotle ...
Alex Coleman: Hans-Georg Lundahl. Are the fundamental principles of Aristotle congruent with the teaching of the Church? Tatian, for example, clearly stated that Aristotle is a hedonist in his ethics. Is hedonism, the ethic of Christianity? Is Materialism, it's ontology? Is empiricism, it's epistemology? If Aristotle is a Materialist thinker with a hedonistic ethos, how can he possibly be baptized? St. Thomas was a genius but the principle of contradiction is a necessary truth. True in all possible worlds.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Let's break this down.

// Tatian, for example, clearly stated that Aristotle is a hedonist in his ethics. //

Two remarks.
a) Tatian is an expert on the Bible, not necessarily on Aristotle.
b) St. Thomas on occasion observed that Aristotle's view was only rational from an innerworldly perspective, which is not concerned with holiness.

// Is hedonism, the ethic of Christianity? //

Some degree, yes.
Charge the rich of this world not to be highminded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, (who giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy,)
[1 Timothy 6:17]

// Is Materialism, it's ontology? //

Materialism:

Democritus
Epicure
Lucrece

NOT Aristotle who was hylomorphist (i e held that the most usual substances are those composed by matter and form).

Aristotle was far closer to Plato than the real materialists were.

// Is empiricism, it's epistemology? //

Yes:
And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth: and no man receiveth his testimony.
[John 3:32]
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
[Acts of Apostles 4:20]
For thou shalt be his witness to all men, of those things which thou hast seen and heard.
[Acts of Apostles 22:15]
That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
[1 John 1:3]

// If Aristotle is a Materialist thinker with a hedonistic ethos, how can he possibly be baptized? //

First, he's not a materialist.

Second, the hedonistic ethos is not always contrary to the Christian ethos.
III
Craig Ostrowski: This penchant to quasi-dogmatize philosophical systems is itself alien to the gospel and the fathers. Philosophical systems are man made tools which are indeed useful but being man made they will always remain faulty to one degree or another. Take whatever is good and useful in each system, modify that which needs modification, but forget about this nonsense of constantly narrowing of the gates for the sake of advancing a silly Eastern Napoleonic complex.
John Nikolov: Craig Ostrowski
I agree with you about philosophy. It can be useful, but that’s about it.
Craig Ostrowski: John Nikolov
Yes. It's very valuable, but the problem arises when people begin to confuse philosophy with divine revelation. Alex Coleman is pretty much doing that here, but not explicitly.
Alex Coleman: Craig Ostrowski. In Antiquity, Christianity was called, "The Divine Philosophy." Christian teaching is the revelation of the mind of God. Of all earthly philosophies, which most closely resembles Christianity? The answer is Platonism. Thus, St. Clement of Alexandria taught that Plato was to the Greeks what Moses was to the Jews. Namely, a Schoolmaster who leads to Christ. Thus, St. Athanasius called Plato, "that giant among the Greeks." Thus, Neitszche said that, "Christianity is Platonism for the masses." Thus and so........
Craig Ostrowski: Alex Coleman
Read up about Clement of Alexandria. He had his problems. I'd I remember correctly, Photios even denounced him. Nevertheless, in no way am I condemning the use of philosophy. In fact, I've noted here how useful it is. If you read Pope Benedict XVI's famous Regensburg address you'll find that he nailed it about the use of philosophy. As the saying goes, it's the hand maiden of theology. It's not theology itself. When you lose sight of that fact, as you have, you've gone too far because you've confused human wisdom with all of its limitations with divine revelation. Then you end up making the further mistake of condemning those who don't make your mistake.
Alex Coleman: Craig Ostrowski. St. Photios reduced the veneration of St. Clement by abolishing his feast day. Although Clement is still referred to as a saint in Orthodoxy and there are icons of him. The Catholic Church also abolished his feast in the 16th century. What is the essential distinction between philosophy and theology in your view? Through God's revelation, which is a theology, we are given an accurate metaphysical picture of reality which is a philosophy. Thus, it would appear that philosophy and theology ought to be viewed as being synonymous.
Craig Ostrowski: Alex Coleman
Divine revelation is divinely revealed information about God and His relationship to man. Theology, properly speaking, is the study of God. Philosophy is comprised of various man made metaphysical systems, none of which were divinely revealed. Thus, again, your conflating divinely revealed truths with man made metaphysical systems utilized to systematize those truths. The two are not synonymous by any means. Again, this is one of the underlying reasons why and how EO's end up rejecting their own fathers.

There's a reason why Photios did with he did concerning Clement of Alexandria. As I previously said, he said some troubling things.
Alex Coleman: Craig Ostrowski. Thus, in your definition, theology is that which is revealed by God, whereas, philosophy comes from the mind of man. That is the essential distinction?
Craig Ostrowski: Alex Coleman
Yes.
Alex Coleman: Craig Ostrowski. Platonism is almost Christianity. Platonism is THE philosophy of man that comes closest to the revelation of God through Jesus Christ. Prior to St. Thomas, the Latins had placed the works of Aristotle on The Index.
Craig Ostrowski: Alex Coleman
Satan almost conveyed the word of God. Philosophical systems are not divine revelation, so don't treat them as such.
Alex Coleman: Craig Ostrowski. Why did the Latins adopt Aristotle as their chief philosopher? The Scholastics were followers of Aristotle, were they not? Did they not call him, The Philosopher?
Craig Ostrowski: Alex Coleman
That's mostly a misconception. The Dominicans favored Aristotle but they were the minority. The Franciscans, i.e. Ss. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, far outnumbered the Dominicans. While those two schools had their share of battles, Rome wisely never dogmatized any philosophical system.
Alex Coleman: Craig Ostrowski. I would like to study the works of St. Bonaventure. Scotus accepted the ontological argument whereas St. Thomas rejected it. St. Thomas's argument against the ontological argument is one of brilliance. He is rightly called, "The Angelic Doctor." It was Descartes who revived the ontological argument, in the West.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: // Thus, it would appear that philosophy and theology ought to be viewed as being synonymous. //

Rather, natural theology is synonymous with philosophy, a friendliness towards wisdom, revealed theology is sophia, wisdom herself.

// Prior to St. Thomas, the Latins had placed the works of Aristotle on The Index. //

There was no Index.

// Why did the Latins adopt Aristotle as their chief philosopher? The Scholastics were followers of Aristotle, were they not? //

In calling Aristotle "the philosopher" they arguably followed Averroist usage. Please note, they equally referred to Averroes as "the commentator" - which makes sense in this perspective.

Averroism provided cultural imports, but Averroism as a whole was consistently rejected.

// I would like to study the works of St. Bonaventure. //

If you'd like to story non-Thomistic, Orthodox, Scholasticism, take a view on the condemnations of Stephen II Tempier, bishop of Paris.

Link:
EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

Mehr Censur

Schlechte Nachricht:

Nach dem was am Wand fehlte:

Antworten nach Sorte : Stefan Speck machte einen Bock in der Nordischen Sprachwissenschaft
https://antw-n-sorte.blogspot.com/2023/09/stefan-speck-machte-einen-bock-in-der.html

samedi 23 septembre 2023

How Long is the Longest YOM Outside Genesis 1?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
status: Six Days related only.

I was just reviewing a video with a reading from Rev. Bandas, a Catholic priest who was an old earth compromiser.

He used the argument that yom could mean any period irrespective of length. I would say that precisely as in modern languages, it could mean "kairos" but never "aion" - at the longest perhaps an individual lifespan or carreere.

My example from history is, you can say "in the day of John Lackland" referring to his reign, but you would never say that or any other "in the day of" phrase for the whole of the Middle Ages.

To those better read in the Bible than I : can you think of clear counterexamples in the Bible, obviously outside this particular controversy?
I
Katrina Cook
Meilleur contributeur: The morning and the evening were the first day, ... the second day...etc., not the morning and the evening was the first thousands of years. God gave the seventh day as one day of rest because he created everything in six days, not six thousand years.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: I agree, but I was asking in order to give an exact evaluation of the argument from those seeing "day" used in other senses ...
II
Celeste Read: "the evening and the morning"
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: Celeste Read Good point, but not exactly what I was asking.
Celeste Read: almost Sabbath here now❤
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: Hope you enjoyed it.
III
Donivan Felty: Friday and Saturday had to be 24 hour days

The Sabbath began at dusk on a 24 hour Friday and ended at dusk on a 24 hour Saturday

The sabbath BY DEFINITION is a day of rest. Man will work 6 days and rest on the sabbath

You could also assume to get to the 6th and 7th day, there must have been 5 preceding days of equal length, but I’ll just put that out there. But why would one day be different than the next?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: Donivan Felty Good point, but not exactly what I was asking.
IV
Luigi Ciapparelli
Meilleur contributeur: Genesis ! : 4 and 5 God defines a day, and it was good. Evolution is like glue once anyone falls in they never get unstuck. By denying a day is a day you are 1. saying God is incapable of creating in a day 2. putting evolution ( Darwin's word) above God's Word 3. questioning God's character as He said and defined a day and meant something else 4. if you do not believe the first few sentences in the Bible then what or when do you believe anything in the Bible? That all comes under the heading of blasphemy. Evolutionists are deceivers, like satan, they either admit they are evolutionists or they keep evolution in their sticky pockets for later. You can run but you cannot hide - God sees everything. That is why God knows every motive, you may forget that but He will not.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: "By denying a day is a day you are"

I am not denying the creation days are 24 hours.

I am seeking arguments against those who misuse other Scripture passages to "prove" it could be longer.

They will not be impressed by you, since they are often enough under pastorals that encourage them to take their error for complete orthodoxy, and I am not impressed by your mistaking me for sharing it.
Luigi Ciapparelli
Meilleur contributeur: Hans-Georg Lundahl Sorry I was not referring specifically to you but those who deny a day is a day. I am also stating that you don't need to go much further than the first few verses of Genesis, where a day is defined. If you are seeking arguments against longer ages then you have my full support, and the reasons why I support a day is a day. If I gave you the wrong impression then I apologize.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: accepted!
Luigi Ciapparelli
Meilleur contributeur: Thank you Hans-Georg and thank you for accepting my apology. It was meant as a general comment and not a reply specifically for you. I would probably have worded it better in Italian. Ciao and every Blessing to You.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: Grazie!
V
Mitchell Goldberg: Every ancient Hebrew commentary without exception agree that it is 6 24 hour days like the days of our work week. Not six eras not six epochs, 6 24-hour days.

Genesis & the Big Bang - Biblical Age of the Universe, 6 Days or 13.77 billion years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN9DutcGf_Q

loL scroll to 5:34
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: Thank you, I agree, but I was asking a more specific question to answer those who don't.
VI
Rod Carty
Meilleur contributeur: Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 show that they were ordinary days, just like the days of our week.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: I would agree, but that was not what I was asking.

I am not here to decide myself on the matter, I am here to find ammo for an argument with those taking the opposite side.

One of their arguments being "in the day of" can mean sth other than "in the 24 hours of" ... my follow up question is, in the Bible, outside Genesis 1, what are the longest periods which are being referred to as "day"?

"In the days of Noah" in Matthew 24 (or whereever it was) would refer to maximally 120 years - the ones when God was planning the flooding. Very maximally, 600 years, those that Noah lived before the Flood.
Rod Carty
Meilleur contributeur: Hans-Georg Lundahl

I understand. My experience is arguments about yom will not be fruitful. That's why I gave the 2 verses I did, because they are what I use.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: I think that there is a way round what you have experienced? - can you help me out?

I tried a search in Douay Rheims, but "in the day of" had more than 500 hits so wouldn't show, and when I limited to NT, it appeared some give only some words in the phrase, and not the whole phrase.
VII
David Harley Prince: Modérateur
Meilleur contributeur: The qualifiers of evening and morning & numerical indicators conextualize "Yom" as a 24 hour period.

It is only when nouns/verbs are attatched that it becomes an epoch.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: David Harley Prince The problem is, how long can an "epoch" be and still be qualified as "the day of ..."
David Harley Prince: Modérateur
Meilleur contributeur: Hans-Georg Lundahl an epoch is indeterminate in its length. Using the descriptor "in the day of" or "in the day that" refers to the time period of that person or event.

"In the day of" King David is the time period of Davids reign.

"In the day that" God created the heavens and the earth is a refrence to the creation week that was defined in the previous chapter.

"In Noah's Day" would be a refrence to the time period of Noah's life.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: Ah - this makes (outside Genesis 1) 950 years the absolute longest record you can think of.

Really inadequate for those who would say that God used "millions of years, billions of years" and called it days in reference to that saying.
David Harley Prince: Modérateur
Meilleur contributeur: Hans-Georg Lundahl I suppose an upper limit would be what can be packed into a singular descriptor.

"In the days of" Rome would refer to the time period of roman rule.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: Do you find anything like that, exceeding "the days of Noah" in the Bible?
David Harley Prince: Modérateur
Meilleur contributeur: Hans-Georg Lundahl nothing that I can think of.

Days of Noah usualy refer to pre flood times/leading up to the flood. 120-600 year span.

In Adams day would be the first 800-950 years after being expeled from the garden.

Thats about the longest I can find an example of.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: David Harley Prince There is no part of the Bible which uses the expression "in the days of Adam" ... I search and get ...

And when a famine came in the land, after that barrenness which had happened in the days of Abraham, Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Palestines to Gerara.
[Genesis 26:1]
In the days of Samgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jahel the paths rested: and they that went by them, walked through by-ways.
[Judges 5:6]
And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years.
[Judges 15:20]
In the days of one of the judges, when the judges ruled, there came a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem Juda, went to sojourn in the land of Moab with his wife and his two sons.
[Ruth 1:1]
Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Juda before mentioned, whose name was Isai, who had eight sons, and was an old man in the days of Saul, and of great age among men.
[1 Kings (1 Samuel) 17:12]
And there was a famine in the days of David for three years successively: and David consulted the oracle of the Lord. And the Lord said: It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gabaonites.
[2 Kings (2 Samuel) 21:1]
Moreover all the vessels, out of which king Solomon drank, were of gold: and all the furniture of the house of the forest of Libanus was of most pure gold: there was no silver, nor was any account made of it in the days of Solomon:
[3 Kings (1 Kings) 10:21]
And the remnant also of the effeminate, who remained in the days of Asa his father, he took out of the land.
[3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:47]
In the days of Phacee king of Israel came Theglathphalasar king of Assyria, and took Aion, and Abel Domum Maacha and Janoe, and Cedes, and Asor, and Galaad, and Galilee, and all the land of Nephtali: and carried them captives into Assyria.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 15:29]
And these whose names are written above, came in the days of Ezechias king of Juda: and they beat down their tents, and slew the inhabitants that were found there, and utterly destroyed them unto this day: and they dwelt in their place, because they found there fat pastures.
[1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 4:41]
David Harley Prince: Modérateur
Meilleur contributeur: Hans-Georg Lundahl I was just picking a name out of a hat.

You just provided the biblical refrences that show exactly my point.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: David Harley Prince Or even further reduce the timeline possible for "day" - so, my point too.
VIII
Gerald Kahlden: Those, especially in the Religious world, that look for ways to change the days into periods of millions of years of "could have been". And then try to claim belief in God's plan of salvation, are "shooting themselves in the foot". If you believe millions of years, at what point did the first sin of man enter into the world? At what point did God appoint him the responsibility of having dominion over Creation? Can that position hold that man existed for millions of years without murders, thievery, or other sin? They have not considered God's eternal plan nor have they understood that Jesus, was there at creation. He verified that Creation was a real event. If you can't trust Him in that claim, how can you trust Him in His historically evidenced claim to be the Son of God who was witnessed to be resurrected From the dead! He is our only hope to get up out of the cemetery someday and go home to live eternally!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Auteur: Gerald Kahlden My dear, I was not arguing for millions of years.

My point is that things like "in the day of Saul" which they use for saying "day doesn't always mean day in the Bible" (technically correct as far as it goes, though not very relevant for creation week which has evenings and mornings), will not be much help if what you want is millions of years.

jeudi 14 septembre 2023

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.

mercredi 13 septembre 2023

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!

HGL's F.B. writings

Pages

jeudi 28 septembre 2023

Defending and Explaining St. Thomas to some Orthodox

Mehr Censur

samedi 23 septembre 2023

How Long is the Longest YOM Outside Genesis 1?

jeudi 14 septembre 2023

Geocentrism vs "Simon Skinner"

Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth

Flood vs Dudley

mercredi 13 septembre 2023

Geocentrism Defended Against FrJerome Zeiler

Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl

Antworten nach Sorte

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Répliques Assorties

Mes profils FB · my FB profiles · mina FB-profiler

Membres

Archives du blog

Qui êtes-vous ?

En défence de FB