mercredi 24 mai 2017

Pause Post

I am catching up with my reading of CMI articles. They are mostly good, some less interesting to me since far from my own concerns, but usually nearly never bad. When they are, I usually write an answer (I am behind two answers).

This article of theirs is from a nearly double countryman of mine, Carolus Linnaeus, ennobled Carl von Linné.

Carl Linnaeus: the scientist who saw evidence for God in everything in nature
by Russell Grigg

We are both Swedes. I just thought he could have been Scanian, and then he would have been doubly my canoutryman, since I am Scanian (that means Danish subjects up to 1658) on my maternal grandfather's side.

No, while he was a Lundensian student like me (sic, no, he was Uppsalensian! re-sic, no he was both in turns!), he was from Råshult, in Småland. The letter Å is pronounced like English "aw" or when short "o", and is used as alternative for "o" when etymology is an older A. That is a result of a vowel shift not quite identical to the English one.

So, his dad was a Lutheran "Komminister" while Catholic predecessors to him would have been termed Chaplains and usually have been celibate and not thus dads to anyone. He was a "priest" in the Lutheran sense, which is not recognised by the Catholic Church as valid.

Now, the Lutheran clergy (a term less tied to sacramental validity than "priest" so I will use it) usually had studied at university at a time when studies were conducted in Latin. They therefore took the Latin or Latinised version of certain names. The Wittenberg students culpable of our Reformation were in Swedish probably called Persson or Pettersson or Pedersson - which they latinised as Petri. The dad of our most famous botanist was slightly latinising sth as Linnaeus, I think his father had no clerical name. By the way, his mother's mother was Scanian, and even from the part of Scania where my family is originally from, the North-East.

When he was ennobled, Linnaeus was changed to von Linné - spelling of surname frenchified and adding a "von" like German nobility. Of course, his brother remained Linnaeus.

Clerical and nobility's surnames are usually older ones than the bourgeois or military names like Lundahl. The names in -son were back in these days not hereditary surnames but patronymics : his mother was born Anna Christina Samuelsdotter (patronymic still in feminine) Brodersonia (feminine version of her father's clerical name, Samuel Brodersonius, where everything in the Latin name is perfect Swedish except the ending).

Even Linnaeus itself is - except ending - perfect Swedish, since a more correct latinisation of same Swedish word came out as Tiliander. So, the spelling "lind" must have given Linnaeus rather than **Lindaeus because it was pronounced "linn" at the time (there are plenny of American dialects which have a simblar phenomenon).

Where was I going? Ah, yes. Lutherans tended during the "century of Orthodoxy" (1593 - 1718, a century plus some) to brag about being the "via media" between Catholicism and Calvinism. Linnaeus came in a time when Lutherans started to think less of theology and therefore loosen up certain things a bit.

While he is still a perfect example of Natural Theology, as in Creation reflects God, his generation in general (I cannot say quite certainly for himself) is one in which Revealed Theology is no longer requiring Orthodoxy, there is a certain latitude. One indeed in which it was at the end becoming more fashionable to be a Platonist sympathising with Catholicism than a perfectly Lutheran Lutheran. I am going a bit in advance, since Linnaeus died in 1778 and the fashion I speak of is that of P. D.A. Atterbom : sympathetic to Catholicism, but even more clearly a Platonist or Neoplatonist philosopher to whom thoughts mattered more than what was written in either Bible or let alone Konkordieformeln (the formula of Concord, a piece of Lutheran theology as derived after a quarrel between Martin Luther's disciples).

I think that the or one of the best chances to reconvert the Western world is to get back a bit to the language and thought modes of this period and to meet it with the thoughts of the 13th C. Scholastics, like St Albert or St Thomas Aquinas. To them also thoughts mattered - but not more than the Bible and Church Fathers.

Now, this means I consider this period as the time of birth of our own culture - of what is coherent in it. In English, no Englishman, Aussie or Kiwi would be the least ashamed of spelling words like Doctor Johnson did. But for some reason some Swedes are stuck in a few spelling reforms and have an American attitude about spelling : as if the fact that Webster recommended or a President endorsed a new spelling obliged people to change their ways. Such Swedes may tell you I am in Swedish showing signs of dyslexia (sth I can take with humour on a forum, not knowing how to spell is a charge Cohanim made against the Apostles!), or is put on or is a role play showing signs of mental breakdown, or means I imagine I am not really living now or things like that. In fact, my Swedish is probably more readable (at least since less dialectal) than that of Linné, when he wrote Swedish. And it reflects the spelling of my favourite authors, like Atterbom.

Can Carolus Linnaeus have contributed to the mess the world is in now? Well, he did use the word "species" and "genus" which in Latin Bibles is where you translate to "kind" in English in ways smaller than the probable created kinds. So, no problem for a botanist to see speciation occur, you just need a ccase of cross breeding or other polyploidy, and there you have it. But while cherries and plum trees may or may formerly have been able to cross breed, this is, if true, because they were the same kind of tree back in Eden. And as I read on in the article of Russell Grigg, I see he came to the same conclusion, or that Jonathan Sarfati did:

Also in the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible, the Hebrew word for ‘kind’ (mîn) in Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24 & 25 was translated variously with the two Latin words species and genus (plural genera). The meanings of the Linnaean species and the biblical species diverged over time, which led to ambiguity. Jonathan Sarfati comments: “The Bible talks of fixity of kinds, which in the Latin translation became fixity of species, but then an unwarranted switch took place to fixity of Linnaean species.”

However, I am a little nonplussed at the beginning of same paragraph:

The idea of ‘fixity of species’ came from ancient writers like the Greek philosopher Aristotle.

I have elsewhere seen Aristotle blamed for being an Evolutionist, so I wonder at the sentence ... I'd like to know where it comes from!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Joan the wife of Chusa*

* Item beatae Joannae, uxoris Chusae, procuratoris Herodis, quam Lucas Evangelista commemorat.

lundi 22 mai 2017

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? IV

When we take Gregorian calendar backwards, we get another problem.

You see, it only exists since 1583 and we have not yet here on the blog figured out how its periodicity is.

It differs from that of Julian calendar, insofar as we are certain that some leap years are 8 years apart. Note this was not the case around 1600, since 1600 was a Gregorian leap year.

So, years previous to 1583 are here reconstructed, as they would have been.

1672 CB
1532 CB
1504 CB

Remember that 1904 also was CB?

2016 CB
1932 CB
1904 CB

And 1904 is of course exactly 400 years after 1504. This means that the periodicity is 400 years, precisely as for leap days in general. As we will see, there will be quirks when approaching beginning of time, but this hardly changes the general picture - or does it?

Byz. Lit.  Sync.  St. Jer.  Ussher
1672 CB  1672 CB  1672 CB  1672 CB
5508  5500  5199  4004
7180 CB  7172 CB  6871 CB  5676 CB
5600   -  6800  5600
1580 CB  7180 CB  0071 CB  0076 CB
1200  7172 CB  0056  0056
0380 CB  0008  0015 CB  0020 CB
0056   -  0014 D  0019 D
0324 CB  0092 CB  0013 E  0018 E
0040  0008  0012 F  0017 F
0284 CB  0084 CB  0011 AG  0016 AG
0056  0056  0010 B  0015 B
0228 CB  0028 CB  0009 C  0014 C
0040 !  "0000" CB  0008 D  0013 D
0188 CB   0007 FE  0012 FE
0056   0006 G  0011 G
0132 CB   0005 A  0010 A
0040 !   0004 B  0009 B
0092 CB   0003 DC  0008 DC
0084   0002 E  0007 E
0008 CB   0001 F  0006 F
0007 D    0005 G
0006 E    0004 BA
0005 F    0003 C
0004 AG    0002 D
0003 B    0001 E
0002 C
0001 D

But what if we just missed out on omitting a secular leap day?

Here are remakes of lower parts of tables:

(5508)  (5199)  (4004)
0008 B !  0007 E !  0004 A !
0007 C  0006 F  0003 B
0006 D  0005 G  0002 C
0005 E  0004 A  0001 D
0004 GF  0003 CB
0003 A  0002 D
0002 B  0001 E
0001 C

Should one omit more leap years than Gregorian postulates? Check this:

31556952 seconds mean Gregorian year
31556925 seconds mean tropical year

3200 is how many years it takes for the 27 seconds to add up to a day which would need to be retracted.

In over 7000 years, this has happened twice. Would the above missed centurial day count in these?

(5508)  (5199)  (4004)
0008 B !  0007 E !  0008 C !
0007 C  0006 F  0007 D
0006 D  0005 G  0006 E
0005 E  0004 A  0005 F
0004 F !  0003 B !  0004 G !
0003 G  0002 C  0003 A
0002 A  0001 D  0002 B
0001 B    0001 C

Or would it not count, so we need one omitted leap day more? Giving both for Syncellus, below:

(5508)  (5500)  (5199)  (4004)
0092 CB  1672 CB  0015 B !  0016 G !
0056  5500  0014 C  0015 A
0036 CB  7172 CB  0013 D  0014 B
0035 D  6800  0012 E  0013 C
0034 E  0372 CB  0011 F !  0012 D !
0033 F  0140  0010 G  0011 E
0032 G !  0232 CB  0009 A  0010 F
0031 A  0028  0008 B  0009 G
0030 B  0208 CB  0007 C !  0008 A !
0029 C  0012  0006 D  0007 B
0028 D !  0196 CB  0005 E  0006 C
0027 E  0084  0004 F  0005 D
0026 F  0112 CB  0003 AG  0004 FE
0025 G  0040  0002 B  0003 G
0024 A !  0072 CB  0001 C  0002 A
0023 B  0071 D    0001 B
0022 C  0070 E
0021 D  0069 F
0020 FE  0068 G !
0019 G  0067 A
0018 A  0066 B
0017 B  0065 C
0016 DC  0064 D !
0015 E  0056
0014 F  0008 ED
0013 G  0007 F
0012 BA  0006 G
0011 C  0005 A
0010 D  0004 CB
0009 E  0003 D
0008 GF  0002 E
0007 A  0001 F
0006 B   -
0005 C  0008 D !
0004 ED  0007 E
0003 F  0006 F
0002 G  0005 G
0001 A  0004 BA
 0003 C
 0002 D
 0001 E

We are seeing how St. Jerome's chronology is in some trouble, none of above versions will give a B for year 1, not even a CB (a CB for "0000" or "years zero" or "year before God created" would of course give an A for the year in which God created).

Can we get around this somehow? See next part.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra
uel, sicut in bloggo legitur
ut infra.

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? III

So, we got back to 1672 for both Gregorian year with CB and Julian year with GF.

Now, going back to Creation is a bit delicate, in the sense that Gregorian years were introduced less than a C before 1672, and Julian years only half a century before AD.

And, I suspect I will in the following be missing a few things about transitional matters about leap years when going from counting Ab Urbe Condita to two versions of Anno Mundi (Byzantine and St Jerome) and from then on to AD.

But, let's pretend, for arguments sake, for a first approximation, that these transitions had not happened, that the series of leap years go straight back to AD 4 without any break in Julian and with the one break 1583 (later in some countries) for Gregorian.

What would the consequence be?

Another thing I will ignore is of course - for a better and systematic reason - that "365 days + 1 leap years every four years (except 3 secular years out of 4)" was never in any kind of calendar most of the time we are talking about.

Whether Church Fathers knew it or not, and I think some did, Adam would not literally have been calling the day of his Creation "March 25" or celebrating it literally on "March 25" of all subsequent years.

He certainly had a calendar, he certainly knew sufficient from God (or if making it after Eden, from the talents God gave him and observation) to have one. We know for a fact, since Flood story is an eye-witness account (unlike the Sumerian versions, where poet admits from the first lines he is writing about things happened very long ago), and since in that eye-witness account, years and months and dates on months are named.

But it is far more likely it was a Hebrew than a Roman one.

And St Jerome would certainly have known that when calculating Roman dates for this or that event (like Friday March 25 for Crucifixion, for Good Friday, for Our Salvation) he was dealing with sources who, themselves, had ultimately been using a Hebrew calendar. I am saying this lest anyone accuse me of contradicting all the Church Fathers by saying this without having explicitly found it in any one of them, yet.

That said, March 25 is an earthly convention, but in the best astronomically correct calendars, it corresponds to a rather precise alignment between Sun and Zodiac, different from other alignments like March 23 or March 27 (there is some leeway to neighbouring days, insofar as the cycle of alignments - known as years - and the cycle of day and night - known as successive calendar days have a glitch : a certain exact alignment may be a few hours into March 25 one year and a few hours back in March 24 next or previous year, depending on how this glitch works out).

And we will now proceed to studying the proleptic Julian and Gregorian calendars, from that point of view.

In the time of the Church Fathers, the Julian was thought to be astronomically exact, meaning, they would have used that one proleptically. This does not amount to an unanimous statement from all Church Fathers that Julian calendar is in fact astronomically perfect and cannot be improved, as Gregorian was an imrovement of it.

Now, shall we begin our studies of proleptic calendars, using the Anno Mundi dates as per two Byzantine, one Roman, one Anglican (but used by Catholics) and one Jewish chronology?

We begin with Julian Calendar, as this one will give us cycle repeat every 28 years.

For Jewish 5777, we will for Julian have to check what date was the first Sunday which in Julian calendar fell on this year. Remember that any letter will be the same for the 1, 8, 15 of each month? This means Sundays in our January were 1, 8, 15. But our January 14 = Russian January 1. So, Julian Dominical letter for this year is B.

Byz Lit Sync.  St. Jer.  Ussh.  Jew.
1672 GF  1672 GF  1672 GF  1672 GF  5777 B
5508  5500  5199  4004  5600
7180 GF  7172 GF  6871 GF  5676 GF  0177 B
5600   -  5600  5600  0140
1580 GF  7180 GF  1271 GF  0076 GF  0037 B
1400  7172 GF  0560  0056  0036 DC
0180 GF  0008  0711 GF  0020 GF  0028
0140   -  0560  0019 A  0008 DC
0040 GF  0009 C  0151 GF  0018 B  0007 E
0028  0008  0140  0017 C  0006 F
0012 GF  0001 C  0011 GF  0016 ED  0005 G
0011 A   0010 A  0015 F  0004 BA
0010 B   0009 B  0014 G  0003 C
0009 C   0008 C  0013 A  0002 D
0008 ED   0007 ED  0012 CB  0001 E
0007 F   0006 F  0011 D  
0006 G   0005 G  0010 E  
0005 A   0004 A  0009 F  
0004 CB   0003 CB  0008 AG  
0003 D   0002 D  0007 B  
0002 E   0001 E  0006 C  
0001 F    0005 D  
   0004 FE  
   0003 G  
   0002 A  
   0001 B !

In the Julian Calendar, thus, the Palm goes to the Ussher chronology.

We'll be back later (yes, tables take time) with Gregorian and a few other considerations. For now, man created March 25 on a Friday implies March 25 fell on a Friday, which as previously seen implies Dominical Letter B. In Julian calendar projected back to Creation, it is Ussher who takes the palm of accuracy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Rita of Cascia

vendredi 19 mai 2017

What Sunday Letter was Year of Creation? II

We will be starting from the present year, and we will be counting backwards, so, here is how we go when counting backwards in time:

2017 a
2016 c, b
2015 d
2014 e
2013 f
2012 a, g
2011 b
2010 c
2009 d
2008 f, e
2007 g
2006 a
2005 b
2004 d, c
2003 e
2002 f
2001 g
2000 b, a
1999 c
1998 d
1997 e
1996 g, f
1995 a
1994 b
1993 c
1992 e, d
1991 f
1990 g
1989 a
1988 c, b

0100 (20-19, but move over)
0030 (11-8, but move over 1, remain 20)
0028 (16-8)

So, the periodicity is once every 28 years - and in the Julian calendar that is always so.

In the Gregorian calendar, there are times, three per four centuries, when leap years are 8 years apart, which of course changes things.

56 (2*28)
84 (adding both, 3*28)

1988 c, b
1904 c, b

Here we will be getting our first centurial year back which was not divisible by 400:

1904 c, b
1903 d
1902 e
1901 f
1900 g !
1899 a
1898 b
1897 c
1896 e, d
1895 f
1894 g
1893 a
1892 c, b

0100 (19-18, but move over)
0010 (10-9)
0012 (4-2)

1892 c, b
1808 c, b
1800 (18-0, but move over one)
1790 (10-9)
1796 (8-2) c, b
1712 c, b

We are in trouble, we cannot use c, b for 1700 by 1712-12, since 1700 was not in Gregorian a leap year.

1712 c, b
1711 d
1710 e
1709 f
1708 a, g
1707 b
1706 c
1705 d
1704 f, e
1703 g
1702 a
1701 b
1700 c !
1699 d
1698 e
1697 f
1696 a, g
1695 b
1694 c
1693 d
1692 f, e
1691 g
1690 a
1689 b
1688 d, c
1687 e
1686 f
1685 g
1684 b, a
1683 c
1682 d
1681 e
1680 g, f
1679 a
1678 b
1677 c
1676 e, d
1675 f
1674 g
1673 a
1672 c, b

And let's check wikipedia on the matter:

1672 (MDCLXXII) was a leap year starting on Friday (dominical letter CB [ - yes!]) of the Gregorian calendar and a leap year starting on Monday (dominical letter GF) of the Julian calendar.

Of course, week days were the same in countries with Gregorian and Julian calendars, what was different was the dates. In countries with Julian calendar, January 1 had been 10 days later, as in 16th C. since the year in which Gregorian calendar was introduced (1600 was a leap year and did not change the glitch between the calendars, 10 days after as before).

Does 10 days glitch match up with CB corresponding to GF?

1672, first Sunday of Gregorian year was January 3. So, January 3 (C) being ten days later in Julian style, it fell on January 13. An N+5, with January 3 being an N+2. 5-2=3.


Seems to me, Julian year should have had Sunday letter or Dominical letters FE rather than GF, in 1672? Is that just me? If so, what did I do wrong?

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra
uel in bloggo
ut infra

PS, found the problem! If Gregorian January 3 was a Sunday, obviously Julian January 3 would be on Gregorian January 13, but 10 days is not a week, so that was not a Sunday. Here we get the table:

Jan 1672
Greg.  Jul.
A 1 F
B 2 Sa
C 3 Su
D 4 M
E 5 Tu
F 6 W
G 7 Th
A 8 F
B 9 Sa
C 10 Su
D 11 M A 1
E 12 Tu B 2
F 13 W C 3
G 14 Th D 4
A 15 F E 5
B 16 Sa F 6
C 17 Su G 7

So, yes, it was GF after all./HGL

PPS Julian GF, that is./HGL

What Sunday Letter was the Year of Creation? I

In Gregorian and Julian Calendars, every date on a whole year or on the two parts of a leap year gets a weekday connected to other dates that year / part of leap year.

This is possible because lunar months are eliminated, all months have standardised day numbers. When lunar months really are lunar, you don't know the weekdays of the dates until the month arrives, but this is not our case. February some years gets a day extra, we know which years, and it is the only month which varies in length. So, it os possible.

It is also interesting because the Sunday letter shifts from year to year, and at leap day in leap years. In a year with 364 days, the Sunday letter would be the same every year. 350 = 7*50, 14 = 7*2, 350+14=364.

But Julian and Gregorian calendars are about a year with 365.25 or 365.2425 days, not 364. So, some years have 365 days and the last day, December 31, has same Sunday letter and Week day as the first, January 1 had had. But this December 31 is also followed by January 1 of next year, which therefore has on each Sunday letter (starting with A on January 1) one weekday later than the year before. In leap years, when the similar shift occors on leap day too, December 31 is however 366th day, and will have its A already one weekday later than January 1, so the ensuing January 1 will be two weekdays later than the one at beginning of the leap year.

One can also put it this way : which Sunday letter will Sunday be on?

A - January 1, like years beginning on Sunday?
B - January 2, like years beginning on Saturday?
C - January 3, like years beginning on Friday?
D - January 4, like years beginning on Thursday?
E - January 5, like years beginning on Wednesday?
F - January 6, like years beginning on Tuesday?
G - January 7, like years beginning on Monday?

Obviously, if Sunday letters went forward each year, January 1 would next year be falling on previous weekday, it is not the case, it would be the case with a year of 363 days.

This means, Sunday letters are instead going backwards.

And since this year is Sunday letter A, previous leap year was Sunday letters C and B. 2015 was Sunday letter D.

And after I tell you how I checked, I will tell you why this is relevant for Creationism.

It is already some way into the year. You can't recall what weekday New Year's Day was on. How do you check the Sunday letter?

Well, you pick up the latest newspaper, ideally daily, you can lay hands on. I am not doing it, but if I were, I guess from computer I would be getting May 19 as a Friday. The above means, every year (or second part of leap year) when May 19 is a Friday should be Sunday letter A. Is this true?

Well, first of all, we look at Sunday letters within a month, how they relate. Not specifically "A", but since the months start on different Sunday letters (some repeating), "n" and then n+1 - n+6.

N  1 8 15 22 29
N+1  2 9 16 23 30
N+2  3 10 17 24 31
N+3  4 11 18 25
N+4  5 12 19 26
N+5  6 13 20 27
N+6  7 14 21 28

In the case of February 29th on a leap year, it is actually same Sunday letter as February 28th a normal year. But all other 11 29ths of the month have same Sunday letter as 1st of same month.

Now, how do we know which Sunday letter the first of a month is? January is A, obviously, but then?

January 29 - A
January 30 - B
January 31 - C
February 1 - D

So February is D, shall we go on? No, it would be tedious. The result is already known, you can check it for yourself with some patience. But the already known fact has already been set in memory verse. In Swedish it is:

Alla De Dagar Gud Böd Eder Gå, Christeligen Fram Att Dem Fullborda

If I can goof around with English a bit, as with "go" instead of "walk", and "dem" instead of both "the" and "them", and especially radically replacing "ye" with "ee" here we have a translation:

All Dem Days God Bade Ee Go Christianly Forth As Dem Fulfilling.

Is it true that December 1 is Sunday letter F? Well, December 31 is supposed to be A, it is supposed to be N+2, and FGA means this is F.

May is 5th month, take 5 words:

All Dem Days God Bade ...

So, May 1 is Sunday letter B, and May 19 like May 5 is B+4, BCDEF, it's an F today. But B+6 is not "H" - a Sunday letter not existing, but A. So, the Sunday letter for 2017 is A.

Now you will want to know how this relates to Creationism?

Well, we know the weekdays of the days of Creation : Sunday to Friday were the six days of new creatures being made, Sabbath was the seventh day, on which God was only blessing the types already made.

What if we also knew the year and the date?

Well, Patristics both East and West of 1054 do claim man was created on March 25, so Friday March 25 in Creation year corresponds perfectly to Good Friday March 25 on which Christ died for us.

What does March 25 as a Friday imply? 25 of a month is N+3. March 1 = D. D+3 = DEFG. Friday G. And that means Sunday is B, since G+2 = GAB = B.

And this brings us to the years calculated in diverse chronologies!

Here we have been discussing the carbonic implications of Syncellus (differing 8 years from normal Byzantine liturgic chronology, Christ born 5500 AM instead of 5508 AM), of St Jerome even more often (Christ born 5199 AM) and I was testing carbonc implications of Ussher (Christ born 4004 AM) and of Jewish calendar (in which 5777 overlaps with 2017).

So, how about testing the Sunday letter implications of them?

I'll be back.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Celestine V*

* Natalis sancti Petri de Morono Confessoris, qui, ex Anachoreta Summus Pontifex creatus, dictus est Caelestinus Quintus. Sed Pontificatu se postmodum abdicavit, et in solitudine religiosam vitam agens, virtutibus et miraculis clarus, migravit ad Dominum.

jeudi 18 mai 2017

Answering Koukl & Keaton Halley and Gary Bates

Two paragraphs from CMI:

Avoiding the obvious

According to Koukl, “There is nothing in the language of those passages that requires something like a global or universal Flood,” and he has offered arguments in defense of a local Flood on his radio program.2 For example, Koukl noted that in Genesis 8:9 Noah’s dove returned because “the waters were still on the face of the whole earth” (emphasis added), but earlier in verse 5 the text says that the waters had already receded enough so that “the tops of the mountains were seen”. So, Koukl reasoned, if “the whole earth” was still under water after some dry land had already been exposed, then “the whole earth” cannot refer to the globe.

However, this argument is flawed. If the planet was surrounded by water with some peaks poking up here and there, one would still be accurate in saying that the globe as a whole was covered. It wouldn’t mean every square inch of land, but rather that the land, broadly speaking, was submerged.3 The words are perfectly consistent with a global Flood, which the wider context demands.

Faltering on the Flood
by Keaton Halley and Gary Bates
Published: 18 May 2017 (GMT+10)

I disagree on the solution. As to "with some peaks poking up here and there", one could pretend tribes of mankind had survived at Andes and Himalayah's independently of Noah's Ark.

And I think this is wrong, even if an Inca Flood myth speaks of a sibling couples using Andes as Ark.

I think this is not what “the tops of the mountains were seen” really means.

In clear weather, you can see mountain tops down in the water some depth (say at least 1 to 2 yeards, depending on clearness of waters).

If you object that a raven (sent out before the dove) must have been surviving on one peak poking up somewhere, it could have survived on a mat of vegetation which included some carcasses as well. I take it that in verse 5, as yet no piece of land was both visible above waves sometimes and not at other times submerged by water. Or raven can have survived in a tree, hacking down on carcasses floating around it, while a dove needs to pick its food on the ground.

And whether raven survived or not is also moot on whether ravens were a pure bird, with seven individuals or couples, or an impure one, with only one couple. Only in the latter case need the raven have survived. But I think that is the case.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Venantius the Martyr

samedi 13 mai 2017

I am Not Generally Against Armstrong

Dave Armstrong, Creationist*, says Creationists must not be divisive · Answering Armstrong on Vast Majority of Experts Argument and Flood Geology · I am Not Generally Against Armstrong

Let no one think I am generally against Dave Armstrong on all issues, just because I took issue with his non-inerrantism (de facto, if not intended) on Age of Earth.

I think he shows he has some fair Fundamentalist credentials in this one:

Catholics & the Historicity of Jonah the Prophet
February 16, 2017 by Dave Armstrong

And I have nothing against his clearly Catholic credentials in his debate with Geisler, here:

“Armstrong vs. Geisler”

#1: Purgatory (Mt 12:32)
#2: Purgatory (Lk 23:43)
#3: Merit & Penitential Suffering
#4: Prayer for the Dead
#5: Prayer to Creatures
#6: Sinless Mary
#7: Mary’s Assumption

Meaning, if he were just only Young Earth Creationist as well and Geocentric, he would be a Catholic after my heart.

It is just that, to me, as I suppose to His Holiness Pope Michael, a Fundamentalist credential is just as Catholic as a Catholics vs Protestants credential when it comes to somes faith, whether in heart or in statements.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Robert Bellarmine