Dishonesty of Abortionists feat. Dr. Randall

A Situation Mistreated for Very Long

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24 October 2010

At LAST out of hookup hotel!

Last redaction of what I wanted: a wife, but not from "here" - meaning that site.

When I started studying again in 2003, I should have gotten out, but did not think about it. From 2004 to now, restrictions on many computers I have used have stopped me from getting out, till today.

6 commentaires

of which only my three reply comments remain, the other person deleted the comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

site for flirts for casual sex

was in it a year or two while desperate about getting a wife and not having one yet

most places where internet is for free, the site is blocked, so I could not get my account finished until today

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you, but do not bring that up please.

Stop.

People who pray about that staying an option pray about me staying celibate. I sometimes want to kill such people.

I do not want to stay celibate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Some people were spying about the emails I got, I presume. Including the ones from that site.

Which presumably brought me bad reputation behind my back - who would care to admit they listened to that kind of spies? - and therefore bad luck, if not with girls themselves, at least with their brothers, parents, uncles, aunts, sisters ... or even grandparents.

Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem

New blog on the kid: Not So Far Away, Not So Big · "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." · How do we know stellar distances? · But Angels Don't Move Planets, They Are Guardian Angels! · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem

While the title is a clickbaiting reference to Ray Comfort and Singing Banana (the former discussed in a video I was hearing while making the html), whatever view you take of the heavenly bodies, even a Heliocentric one, it is kind of a cosmic version of Ray Comfort's well designed banana which fits the human hand. Here are CMI doing a Heliocentric version:

Remarkable evidence of a designed, young, and stable solar system
by Andrew Sibley, This article is from
Creation 45(4):55, October 2023
https://creation.com/young-stable-solar-system

But the problem is, it doesn't take care of the Distant Starlight Problem, Geocentrism does.

Gary Robokoff

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

17.X.2023

The age of the universe is all over the place.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Geocentrism.

Recall how the shortest distance measures are done that involve light years, e g 4 light years to alpha of the Centaur? Trigonometry. If earth is what is moving, sun and star both are relatively still (though moving on a very much more long term basis), then we have one distance and two angles and can do trigonometry. If the Sun and the star is what is moving and if we can't guarantee the stars moves in stride with the Sun, even if we see it is in pace with the Sun, then we have simply one angle and no distance. Not enough to do trigonometry.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY and needs revision once more data available, even under 1k LY.

Any claim of accurate parallax or any light departure point of light visible here and now over 5,784 (minimum value SPIRAL LY radius i the nearest departure point of any light arriving here and now at standard light speed) is disputed science.

SPIRAL shows why basic physics and math explanation of the vast body of empirical cosmological observations, attest the vastly higher probability science is the year age of the universe is capped by the LY distance SPIRAL radius i. So the mantle of science is firmly within the universe being 'thousands, not billions' of years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY"

The problem is, above that, there are other methods taking over.

Parallax X optic size of star is supposed to break down to certain star types with certain typical sizes, like main series has a size 1 ~ 2 times the sun. By this method, astronomers think they have gone far beyond 1k LY.

And from there, Cepheids take over until you have the 13.8 billion LY away.

I do not have the book you have written on spiral cosmology, but Geocentrism actually takes away the need, since it involves no reliable reason to take even alpha Centauri as even 4 LY away.

And how does Geocentrism work?

Two options.

Riccioli: angels move individual heavenly bodies through a void from East to West, but are not keeping the same speed.
Thomas Aquinas: God moves the upper heaven, which moves spheres below it, from East to West, and in each sphere angels move the celestial bodies the other way round.

In the mechanics of St. Thomas, I analyse the miracle of Joshua's long day as follows:

a) God obeyed Joshua, by ceasing to move the heavens westward
b) the angels of sun and moon also stood still in their habitations (which is why they did not move slightly eastward either).

This way, Joshua 10:14 is true:
There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel
and Habacuc 3:11 is true:
The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.

And the thing which God moves directly and in which angels move their orbits can be considered as the firmament, which also reaches down in this circular motion to the surface of the earth, which is why we have Coriolis effect and winds of passage and oceanic currents. The matter of which this is made is presumably aether, i e the actual non-void in so called vacuum. Not only celestial bodies, but also atoms, are suspended in aether. However, the aether between the atoms in our bodies does not belong to the firmament, as it is not firmly tied to similar positions in relation to other parts of it.

Note, when an object starts to fall, the reason it does not fall westward with the aether is, while it was suspended before the fall, it acquired an eastward momentum through the aether of the firmament, this being also why geostationary satellites work.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In Pearlman YeC SPIRAL we illustrate how/why even if parallax was accurate up to 30k LY (somehow able to account for all gravitational lensing...) based on the highest probability science it would still align best with the most distant stellar objects light departure point of 5,784 (6k rounded) light years to date maximum. As one needs to take into account the change in density of the universe at light departure. All over SPIRAL Radius i departed on day 4. The more distant the stellar object, the earlier on day 4 in passed that distance from us. We conclude a Earth-sun elliptic centric universe.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

(PDF) SPIRAL's 'MVP' hypothesis our most preferred view of the universe exhibit A
www.researchgate.net/publication/315676261

MVP hypothesis, i will see if i have an excerpt on the cosmic distance ladder.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Unlike a blog, your link to researchgate won't open on this computer.

It may be interesting, but I think it is also superfluous.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl see if this link works on SPIRAL Blitz PDF on the comic distance ladder. if not i will see if i have the link to it on academia.

(PDF) Parallax, Gravity and The Cosmic Distance Ladder.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301567405_Parallax_Gravity_and_The_Cosmic_Distance_Ladder

Hans-Georg Lundahl there can be more than one viable hypothesis on reconciling the cosmic distance ladder, a light speed limit of standard light speed, and the universe being 6k rounded years. It is good to have more than one in case one is falsified.Either way, time (and or our One common father) will tell which one best describes the one actuality.

SPIRAL 'Blitz' cosmic distance ladder hypothesis.
https://www.academia.edu/44429404/SPIRAL_Blitz_cosmic_distance_ladder_hypothesis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks for sharing.

// Don't assume uniformitarian assumptions. Do you assume a stellar object 15k LY, 1.5M LY, 1.5B LY.. has always been at that approximate distance?

Obviously if it was subjected to a material amount of cosmic expansion it was not. So the light we see here now from all objects at and over 5778 LY, could have departed when 5778 LY distance. //

The problem is, on your view, the views we have of the stars OUGHT to reflect, not the actual distance now (if anything like known), but the distance within 5778 LY.

Because you see, when a modern cosmologist says "those far off stars are 13.8 billion LY away" he means they were so 13.8 billion Y ago, and that they could now be very much further off.

The REAL logical result of your theory being true is, no star should even by uniformitarians be measured further away than 5778 LY, since the "distance measured" reflects very strictly the conditions of the light we receive, filtered through certain assumptions.

The positions given by astronomers are definitely NOT meant as "what the distance is now, long after the starlight was emitted" bt ONLY "distance when the starlight was emitted" ..

So, your solution seems to be a non-solution.

Än mer Censur

På Stephan Borgehammars mur.

Innehåller en reference till hans verk. Är på tyska:

Antworten nach Sorte : Reliquien, echt!
https://antw-n-sorte.blogspot.com/2019/11/reliquien-echt.html

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

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.