Geocentrism Defended Against FrJerome Zeiler

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

FrJerome Zeiler

20.VIII.2023

12th Lord's Day after Pentecost

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

Problem solved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem solved.

Jez Austin

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Not after all the studies of the motions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four other answers to FrJerome Zeiler

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

A

Michal Paszkiewicz

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

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

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

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

B

Steve Szabo

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

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

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

C

Scott Blacker

Admin

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

D

Johnny Proctor

Admin

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

Number Symbolism in Genesis 5?

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.VIII.2023

Has anyone else here come across this one?

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

If so, how did you respond?

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

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

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

I

Darrell Wilson

Meilleur contributeur

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

II

Doug Loomis

My response is figurative, smigurative.

III

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

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

Diana Neuman

Lexie A'lviore what does this mean?

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

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

Diana Neuman

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

Mirth Johnson

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

IV

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

What's your exact point?

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

Well, detect it.

V

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

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

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

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

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

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

One answer

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

A

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Benjamin Hanson "Honestly do not know."

With such lifespans, it stands to reason they were.

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

A common theme among unbelievers a k a Modernists.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

The Sumerians do, the Hebrews don't.

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

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

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

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

* (footnote)

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

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

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

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

VI

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

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

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

Benjamin Hanson

Meilleur contributeur

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

How pre-Mosaic are they?

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

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

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

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

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

That's how Haydock reasons about Genesis 3 events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII

Eli Whitney

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

VIII

continuing with Lexie A'lviore

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

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

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Kyle Bower nope...i believe in God

I dont believe in your wrong interpretation

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

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

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

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

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

Lexie A'lviore
😆😂🤣

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

Way to twist my comment just like you twist scripture.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

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

Show me a verse..that say

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

JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH

Kyle Bower thanks for proving my point

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

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

Lexie A'lviore you’ve got nothing.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Kyle Bower nope..you ve got nothing

AGAIN..show me a verse that say

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

Kyle Bower JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH..

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

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

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

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

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

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

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

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

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

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

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

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

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

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

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Lexie A'lviore Have you considered Exodus 20?

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

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

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

Kyle Bower

Meilleur contributeur

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

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl THE BIBLE is clear

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

Stop lying about the Bible.

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl stop lying about the BIBLE?

Show me the verse..that say

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

Stop implying that God was a slave of your 24 hour

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

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

Lexie A'lviore

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl Did God say

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

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

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

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

Now, my turn.

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

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

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

Even More?

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

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

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

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

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

PPS, here is another item:

PPPS - and another:

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

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

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

after lots of scrolling:

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

FB "Removing Spam" From Back in 2019!

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

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

Here is the terms of my offer:

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

Here is a list of blogs to which it applies:

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

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

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

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

C. S. Lewis vs Psychology

Scott Blacker

Admin

16.VII.2023

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." C S Lewis - Miracles

Jez Austin

Evolution would not furnish us with a brain well adjusted to discovering truth, but rather a brain which confers advantage. This seems consistent with the kinds of error we find our brains are in fact susceptible to. If our brains were designed to think rationally, how come it takes so much effort and training to do so?

Simon Skinner

Jez Austin Good point. Our many cognitive biases, issues such as anxiety due to scanning for predators, pattern recognition apophenia and pareidolia all point to our origins. We weren't designed perfect from a blank sheet of paper, we're the cumulative product of survival. Our psychology says as much about our evolutionary roots as our biology does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner "Our many cognitive biases,"

If you pretend these invalidate Christian metaphysics, why don't they invalidate yours, the one they depend on?

Simon Skinner

Hans-Georg Lundahl Are you really asking why the existence of cognitive biases doesn't invalidate physics ?

Ron Eclavea

Simon Skinner

It’s prudent to trust in revelations from God, most especially for atheists and agnostics when scientific empirical evidence most definitely supports these.

Genesis 1:1 👍🏻

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simon Skinner Why would physics be different from other intellectual pursuits?

And why do you equate your own metaphysics with physics?

Jez Austin

Hans-Georg Lundahl I think science (particularly physics) is on a firmer epistemological footing than metaphysics & other intellectual persuits, because experiments are reproducible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jez Austin why would that not just be another cognitive bias?

If you accept that cognitive bias as leading the right way, why fight all the other cognitive biasses (apart from the ones known to produce errors)?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jez Austin To clarify my meaning.

Some things are known to produce error, like the danger signal, we all know of false alarms. But that's not what you normally mean by "cognitive bias" ... it is more like things about cause and effect (every effect requires an adequate cause) or substantiality (an act doesn't exist apart from the acting entity and a quality not apart from the entity having it - barring miracles).

These are more basic to our idea of reality than the idea "experiments can be repeated, therefore the one interpreting interprets them right" ...

Jez Austin

Hans-Georg Lundahl Any observation might be an illusion. When the illusion is perfectly consistent with reports from other observers, and coherent with the therories we've been developing to explain previous observations, even then however tempted we might be to accept it as a true observation, it might still be an illusion.

I can't absolutely prove that it isn't, I just doubt it that's all, and I think you should too: The more repeatable an experiment proves to be, the more credence it deserves. Cognitive biasses don't need to produce consistency & coherence; if they do, it's a coincidence, an increasingly slim one as more observations are collected.

Whereas Christian metaphysics is not based on consistent & coherent observations: reports of contradictory observations are readily available.

Ron Eclavea

Jez Austin
Not true at all….

Especially if one examines consistent observations from other observers.

This again verifies and confirms the cosmology and cosmogony of Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 👍🏻

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jez Austin "Any observation might be an illusion."

1) We were talking of cognitive biasses, not observations.

That a given observation might be an illusion is not an argument to doubt it, unless there is a positive reason to think it probably is so.

2) Not true of the observation that we make observations

"The more repeatable an experiment proves to be, the more credence it deserves"

That's a cognitive bias. Obviously, one I share. And, as obviously, one I limit to experiments.

"Whereas Christian metaphysics is not based on consistent & coherent observations:"

Yes it is;

"reports of contradictory observations are readily available."

I think you refer to the Bible, and you are wrong on that one too. But Christian metaphysics is a venture intellectually (though not personally) independent of believing the Bible. It's based on consistent observations, like the fact we think logically (as mentioned by CSL in quote above) when our thinking at all merits the title of thinking (as also mentioned by CSL, same book, but not in the quote).

Geocentrism, Tradition and Science

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Geocentrism, Tradition and Science · New blog on the kid: What Happened to the Sungenis Debate?

Steve Szabo

status

June 2:nd, 2023

Magesterial ? The following article makes a case for unanimous consent by the Church Fathers on Geocentrism. Have you seen a good case against that argument?

Scripture Catholic : Geocentrism : Tradition / Church Fathers*
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/#Tradition_Church_Fathers

Answers

I and II (in inverted chronoligical order, as my "first" answer wasn't answered and so can stand first, as a preliminary).

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I've seen a bad one, made by David Palm.
One CF said that such and such pagans discovered such and such things, and one of the discoveries enumerated was "so and so discovered the earth orbits the sun" - the problem with taking this as an exception is, the word "discovered" can have been used ironically, the CF can have been making fun of the great men. Also, it was in context not at all an exegesis of the Geocentric passages of the Bible.

II

Matthew Myers

Yes. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine. Also the very truth of Fides et ratio.

Answers

III and IV and V and VI (in actual chronological order)

III

which has an insert α and then resumes at β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Neither of these two denied Geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Also, neither of these two seriously questioned it.
St. Robert is often quotemined as saying "if a proof of Heliocentrism were upcoming, then we would need to be very careful about determining what the Bible is saying" - but the quote continues "but I don't think such a proof is possible" - as to St. Thomas, yes he spoke of orbits possibly being physically different from what Ptolemy taught, which as a Tychonian I agree with. However, he also based prima via (at least according to Riccioli and therefore the common reception of it in Riccioli's time) on Geocentrism, on heaven being turned every day around earth, by God.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl so scientific infallibility for those two. Got it.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl we aren’t even at the center of this galaxy.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl so you’re saying that the outer edges of the observable universe are careening around us at the center every day at about 4 billion light years per hour every day?
Or are you saying that (as science has shown unarguably) that the earth does rotate, but just that the earth is at the center and not just this solar system? So at which time of the year is the earth at the center?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl and even if we only contain this ludicrous idea to a truncated solar system near the edge of Pluto’s average distance from the sun (when it at times is much farther from the earth than that), it would have to travel at about 4 billion miles an hour to arrange itself at nearly the same place the next day. And caused physically to circle around the earth by what scientific mechanism? Certainty not gravity. Or are all of these objects just much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much tinier than we thought?

α

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers you have a tape measure that measures the perimeter of the galaxy?

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor there’s this stuff called science. It is used to make far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far , far, far more educated guesses than the pap on this page. Catholic leaders and Saints would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have. They would’ve marveled at the amazing universe that God created even more. They wouldn’t have tried to carve out some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance. This kind of ignorance is aberrant.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

You mean like Cardinal Ratzinger?**

<< According to [Ernst] Bloch, the heliocentric system – just like the geocentric – is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: ‘From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.” >>

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, 1990

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor he was not arguing for himself that the Sun orbits the earth. He was not stupid. He also understood quite well about gravity.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

You are inserting words into his mouth. He is clear:

"Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor reading comprehension. Try it.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor context. Try it.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers you first.

Ratzinger's 1990 remarks on Galileo
NCRONLINE.ORG, January 14, 2008, by John L. Allen Jr.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/ratzingers-1990-remarks-galileo

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Pro tip.

You seem to be responding from your wall, and sometimes confusing where you are responding to me with where you are responding to Johnny Proctor.

How about not responding from your wall, but go to the group and see where your comment to respond to is on the discussion?

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"so scientific infallibility for those two. Got it."

More like for Bible and Church Fathers.
Do you have a specific CF or scholastic prior to Trent session IV who was for Heliocentrism at least as a possibility in connexion with Day 4, Joshua's long day, and Jesus calling Earth God's footstool?

"we aren’t even at the center of this galaxy."

What exact evidence do you have for the galaxy ("this one", and, since 1920 or 30, "others" outside it in the universe)?

"the outer edges of the observable universe are careening around us at the center every day at about 4 billion light years per hour every day?"

I am saying 1) we have no tightly argued reason from observations to consider the observable universe as greater than 1 light-DAY in radius. The reasons alleged depend on the false assumption of Heliocentrism, 2) even this involves stars going around us at 2 pi the speed of light, which would be impossible as vectorial movements within space adequately defined, but not impossible if they are simply moving WITH a moved portion of space-stuff.

"(as science has shown unarguably)"

Actually not. You are horribly shoddy about what you can argue and what you can't. I maintain Earth (in another, non-moved portion of the space-stuff) does NOT even rotate.

"it would have to travel at about 4 billion miles an hour to arrange itself at nearly the same place the next day."

As said, impossible for the material piece of body it is to accomplish vectorially through matter, even just the matter of space, but highly possible if a given portion of space-stuff itself moves at an angular speed of 360° every 23 h 55 minutes.

"And caused physically to circle around the earth by what scientific mechanism?"

Citing St. Thomas:

<< The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. >>

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl your reading comprehension is crap. You claim that I claim things that I don’t claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but you were actually doing the same to me a while ago, remember?

The "scientific infallibility" for the two Church Doctors, by themselves alone and in all matters of science? I never said that.

But you found it a fair comment on what I had said.

Now, I quoted part after part of what you said by copy-paste, and then answered it bit by bit, how about telling me where I am attributing to you a position the quote doesn't show you to have?

IV

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers What do you mean? St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine are Doctors of the Church, not "Church Fathers". As far as I know, they were both Geocentrists....which is strong among Church Doctors. Even Saint Terese the Little Flower was a Geocentrist.

Matthew Myers

Steve Szabo there’s this stuff called science. It is used to make far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far , far, far more educated guesses than the pap on this page. Catholic leaders and Saints would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have. They would’ve marveled at the amazing universe that God created even more. They wouldn’t have tried to carve out some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance. This kind of ignorance is aberrant.

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers Sorry, I totally disagree with your claims. I find that as science progresses, it keeps confirming more and more traditional Catholic Doctrines. Not sure why you are on this sub.
Also, my question was about Church Fathers and you made an answer based on Church Doctors, so I hope you see how your views on these things are off-base.

Matthew Myers

Steve Szabo it does not confirm geocentric claims.

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers Sorry, but did someone ask for your opinion about that ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers A few notes.
1) You pretend that "Science" makes far more educated guesses than we do. But you do not show why or how they are educated.
2) You said Sts Thomas and Bellarmine (and a few more) "would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have" but you are imprecise as to what information or data you mean, except if you meant things like galaxies and distances which are not raw data but derived by a process of thought that can be contested, and also, the test of Trent is not what CF would have interpreted, but what they did interpret, when unanimous.
3) You call what we stand for "some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance" - would you be precise on what raw data we ignore or how our interpretation is close to Gnosticism?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl explain away gravity. I’ll wait.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No explaining AWAY to do.

Suppose I drop a pen from standing height, can you by gravity calculate how it will impact the floor? Yes - on the simple condition that nothing wilfully interferes with its fall. If I catch it with the other hand, your prediction will fail.

The parallel to my "other hand" in Geocentrism is, direct acts of God for the daily rotation of the universe, direct acts of angels for the orbital movements along the zodiac or for the movements mis-analysed as "proper movement X aberration X parallax" rather than as solely proper movement.

Now YOUR turn.

An Atheist can prove Heliocentrism by stating gravity and inertia alone (both depending on mass) determine movements. He can dismiss God and angels as not existing. So, he is forced by his denial to accept Heliocentrism.

Why do YOU deny God and angels being directly involved?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl yep! That sounds like the way God designed the perfection of science. As a lie and a bizarre puzzle. It is just like Protestants with the Scriptures. Catholics can explain the Scriptures. Protestants are forced to explain so much away. Here you misinterpret Scripture as a science text and are forced to explain so much science away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"As a lie and a bizarre puzzle."

What's a lie about it?

What's a bizarre puzzle about it?

The science that St. Thomas and (to an extent) Riccioli shared is bizarre and a lie?

Well, there goes your claim "Catholics made the first universities" down the drain!

Not my claim, with similar wording though. I actually respect the intellect of these men.

"Catholics can explain the Scriptures. Protestants are forced to explain so much away. Here you misinterpret Scripture as a science text"

Sounds like a prejudice that Catholics are against and Protestants for Fundamentalism.

It's the other alternative that actually comes from Protestants, but Evangelicals are making that hard for you to see - and so are "Catholic" Modernists.

"and are forced to explain so much science away."

You are treating Science as an enunciation of truth, rather than sciences as (more or less successful) pursuits of truth.

I am not explaining away sense data. The rest can be bad conclusions gotten from bad paradigms.

In fact, as a Heliocentrist, you are the one explaining away sense data of sight and inner ear, both telling us we are not moving when we stand still on the earth, and the former also telling us that heavenly bodies ARE moving. YOU are the side making science a "lie and a bizarre puzzle" ....

But you are unlikely to see this, as long as your modernist priest tells you to treat Science as an extra Bible, and you don't step away from him.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl when St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Belarmine said that if Scriptural interpretation contradicted science that the Scriural interpretation was wrong. God is the Author of both Truths. They didn’t say that the science could merely be explained away and substitute miracles or planet pushing Angels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Belarmine said that if Scriptural interpretation contradicted science that the Scriural interpretation was wrong."

No.

They didn't.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes they did.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl again. Reading and reading comprehension.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl it’s after midnight here and eisegesis is boorish and boring.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Get to bed and read my response tomorrow then, I am responding now.

1) Before you discuss reading comprehension, how about getting the exact text;

2) you didn't give one for St. Thomas saying when Science and Bible contradict, it's the Bible and not the sciences that is wrongly interpreted;

3) I will give you references for "planet pushing angels"

I Pars, Q 70, A 3, shortest cut, replies to objections 1 to 4:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article3

<< Reply to Objection 1. Certain things belong to the adornment of the universe by reason of their proper movement; and in this way the heavenly luminaries agree with others that conduce to that adornment, for they are moved by a living substance.

Reply to Objection 2. One being may be nobler than another absolutely, but not in a particular respect. While, then, it is not conceded that the souls of heavenly bodies are nobler than the souls of animals absolutely it must be conceded that they are superior to them with regard to their respective forms, since their form perfects their matter entirely, which is not in potentiality to other forms; whereas a soul does not do this. Also as regards movement the power that moves the heavenly bodies is of a nobler kind.

Reply to Objection 3. Since the heavenly body is a mover moved, it is of the nature of an instrument, which acts in virtue of the agent: and therefore since this agent is a living substance the heavenly body can impart life in virtue of that agent.

Reply to Objection 4. The movements of the heavenly bodies are natural, not on account of their active principle, but on account of their passive principle; that is to say, from a certain natural aptitude for being moved by an intelligent power. >>

+ my Latin transscript and own translation from Riccioli, with citations:

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

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers, you couldn't be more wrong. And your mocking, sarcastic attitude is unfortunate.

<< As natural, angels have a part in the government of the universe that cannot be confined to the angelic world. In fact, by virtue of the universal law that decrees the superior’s help to the inferior, the angels should have more to do in the government of the universe than any other creature in the world. It may well be that pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle proceeded from a deeper penetration of a profound truth rather than from mere ignorance of scientific laws when they saw the angels as movers or governors of the heavenly bodies. >>

The Summa [of St. Thomas Aquinas] Simplified for Everyone, pp. 124-125, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1952 edition

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor talk about misapplication of principles!

Johnny Proctor

Admin

6. If anyone says that
the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that
Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith:
let him be anathema.
Chapter III, Canons of Vatican I (1869-1870)

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor on Faith and morals. (So you aren’t only ignorant in the field of science? Something to be said for consistency, I guess.)

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Sorry, friend. You're busted. Actually, Hans took your arguments apart line-by-line last night. I'm just the relief pitcher.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor because you don’t know the difference between discipline and Doctrine, what could not possibly be binding, and that science is not a matter of Faith and morals? You’re busted.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

To quote YOURSELF: reading comprehension. I quote St. Thomas and Vatican I. You keep offering your opinion about profane science. And no, as St. Robert said:

"I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic”, it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles."

Letter to Foscarini, 1615

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers "science is not a matter of Faith and morals"

What if some matters of faith and morals are improperly perceived as science?

Obviously by people who are against the faith and morals truth involved and want to take it out of that sphere.

If it were science, you had plenty of chances to give a scientific reasoning:

• for Heliocentrism as such - met by appeal to gravity, in the first instance
• for gravity being the sole operator of the bodies of heavenly movements (with inertial momentum) - not met.

V

Matthew Myers

What do you suppose ‘one can suppose’ means?*** I don’t think it means what you think it means. Back to the drawing (with color crayons, I presume) board.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers I assume you are new here. We do not traffic in ad homina here. Please moderate your tone or we will enforce group discipline.

Matthew Myers

When silliness shows up on my wall, I respond. Did anyone ask you to spread eisegetical “science”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers You are on a group called Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism.

That content from this group shows up on your wall is because you are on the group.

You are free to leave it, I am not going to add you back.

If you stay, how about being polite?

And what do you mean by "eisegetical science"? That we have no science, only Bible interpretation, and that one eisegetical rather than exegetical?

How about backing up either?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl no

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl When silliness shows up on my wall, I respond. Did anyone ask you to spread eisegetical “science”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, why don't you leave the group, if you don't want its material on the wall?

And you have STILL not explained what you mean by "eisegetical science" ... did you get that from your priest who was rooting for modernism?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl most traditionalist priests I know don’t buy this silliness.

Serious question, are some of you also flat earthers or young earthers also?

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers your reference to the Traditional cosmology of the Catholic Church as "sillyness" demonstrates a fundamentally unserious attempt to grasp the issue. Perhaps you would find kindred spirits on the Catholic Answers site, as they adore science.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor they love all of God’s Truth and don’t make them fight each other.

Ron Eclavea

Matthew Myers

Nope. They fumble and stutter over the geocentric universe truth God has revealed in scripture. And as a result they fumble and stutter over the truth of the sabbath day as there can only be a 7th Day rest by God only if he started creation on the 1st Day!!

There’s no other credible way to explain this.

There must be an objective 1st Day of creation! Not some gobidigook half arse exegesis of the command to observe the sabbath as God commanded in scripture.

Genesis 1:1 👍🏻

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Thank you for stating:
1) you are a trad (I was one when it still stood in some ways for integrism, I am into Pope Michael now)
2) you can't argue but go by "most priests"
3) you appeal to snobbery by stating your social reference (which is not a theological one) doesn't "buy into this silliness"

In return I owe you:

• I am not a flat earther
• I very much am a young earther.

That's how I came to Geocentrism, but it has more theological payouts than refuting the "distant starlight" supposed problem for young earth. Like stating clearly there is an extremity of the universe, and of the visible universe, so allowing us to state with confidence where Jesus went.

Creation vs. Evolution : Where Did Jesus Go?
search for "creavsevolu" and then search in the blog, FB censors by treating the blog as "contrary to community standards"

[Creation vs. Evolution : Where Did Jesus Go?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/05/where-did-jesus-go.html]

A priest from St. Nicolas tried to answer this by stating the outer limit of Heaven is the glorious body of Christ, which is arguably heretical. Yes, I mean "Saint Nic" in Paris.

Où se trouve le ciel ? - Abbé A. Rampon - 18/05/2023
Eglise Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet | 18 mai 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDc6v6Je1aY

Matthew Myers

Ron Eclavea like 7th day Adventist invented by Ellen that couldn’t figure out or abide by the simplest things in the New Testament? That’s even worse! Far worse!

[I'm leaving out, for now, the ensuiting debate on 7 or 8 day day of rest, and going directly to my answer on following, after it.]

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl again. Reading comprehension.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers You are not exactly qualified to speak of reading comprehension, if you take Young Earth Creationism as invented by Ellen White.

Perhaps my reading comprehension (as patience after some 1.5 weeks in North Germany, back in Paris now) was wrong, but you seem to take it the Apostles were as open to old earth as they were celebrating on Sunday.

"Inspiring Philosophy" pretends to trace YEC to Ellen White
New blog on the kid, Monday, 27 March 2023, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 18:37
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/03/inspiring-philosophy-pretends-to-trace.html

Or you are simply ignorant of the Church Fathers.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl wring again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl actual photo from the edge of the flat earth. I thought that you would like this as well.

[leaving out, but looks more like a duck near a waterfall]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers I have already debunked the idea that a literal reading of the Bible would support a flat earth, so much for YOUR reading comprehension.

Est-ce que la Bible dit que la Terre est plate?
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica, Wednesday, July 17, 2019, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 2:12 PM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/07/est-ce-que-la-bible-dit-que-la-terre.html

With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl, Thursday, 23 April 2015, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 03:31
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html

The French one is fairly exhaustive in a short space.

If your French is as lousy as your reading comprehension, go to the English link.

[Between his comment and my answer, it seems Johnny Proctor already excluded him. Er, no, just reprimanded, he's still there.]

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl calm down. I’m just making fun of your silly position. It’s not reading comprehension, but if you need that to be a victory, go ahead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers it's nice to know your sense of humour is well and alive.

Your sense of debate isn't, you never provide arguments.

VI

Johnny Proctor

Admin

The case is presented in rock solid manner by a Doctor of the Church:

<< Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic”, it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles. >>

St. Robert Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 1615

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor What St. Robert Bellarmine calls "modern" being of course not Rahner or Schillebeeckx but Aquinas, Cusanus, Suarez, Coimbra Jesuits etc ...

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl - ah, yes! The days when a modern theologian could actually contribute to the Traditional theology of the Church rather than stake his reputation on how far he is willing to go to tear it down.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed.

* It says 1564, about Trent Session IV, but I think it is 1546! ** The idea of relativity will make for equivalence only in an infinite universe, in a finite one, whether space is absolute or relative, there is a geometrical centre. Hence, the idea of Ratzinger is highly inadequate. *** Not sure if something was erased, but I was looking for the previous occurrence of "one can suppose" and did not find any. W a i t ... there is an insert in the part III! See insert α

One More FB Stops Me From Sharing

Here is the link:

somewhere else : Notes on the Disputation of Barcelona - very preliminary
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2023/03/notes-on-disputation-of-barcelona-very.html