In Answer to Progressing Spirit, Why Every Word of the Bible is True

This is from their letter Q&A April 28, 2022.*

Q: By Larry

Why do fundamentalist believers take every word of the Bible as totally correct, when no one, to my observation, has an answer to the exact quotes of Jesus, Moses, Samuel, etc. Do you remember the game where a conversation was started about a subject, and then passed on to others until it came full circle and related back to the originator. Usually, not the same. I think the Bible accounts such as the creation story exemplifies that game!

Let's take this piece by piece. I give the real answer, before taking apart the fake one.

Why do fundamentalist believers take every word of the Bible as totally correct,

Totally correct as to doctrine or as to fact. Not necessarily as to verbatim quote, by today's standard of exactitude.

when no one, to my observation, has an answer to the exact quotes of Jesus, Moses, Samuel, etc.

Convention : giving a quote as verbatim does not necessarily mean back in these days that no iot or tittle of the spoken words could have been changed before the writing down. The words of Caesar on that Ides of March have been given as "et tu fili" and as "et tu Brute" or "και συ Βρουτε" - it is referring to the same sentence, whether in Latin or in Greek, whether Brutus was adressed with his name or as "son" ... similarily, one word on the Cross is given in two different Gospels as "Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?" and as "Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani?" according to two different languages, Hebrew of the Psalm and Aramaic of the Targum, I suppose. In either case, Our Lord cried out in a Semitic language (the mockers would not have pretended to hear Him "calling on Elijah" otherwise) and in either case, Our Lord said the beginning words of a psalm (which was not very flattering for the mockers, since it called them bulls of Bashan, but which was hope-carrying to the faithful who stood by, the Holy Mother and the Beloved Disciple, as Christ also said hereby "I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I praise thee." A thing that Christ does in each valid Eucharist). So, this verbatim exactitude is not necessary for the doctrinal infallibility and factual inerrancy to be there in the text.

In the case of some purely human speaker, the hagiographer is not "distorting" (with memory lapse) the notional content of the words, and in case of the speaker being God, before incarnation (as in "God spoke to Moses and said" passages) or after (as in "Jesus said") the doctrinal infallibility and factual inerrancy applies both to what was orally heard and what was put down.

Do you remember the game where a conversation was started about a subject, and then passed on to others until it came full circle and related back to the originator. Usually, not the same. I think the Bible accounts such as the creation story exemplifies that game!

This presupposes a nice and nifty invention of progressive Christianity, of which the club Progressing Spirit is a subset, a long series of transition orally before the writing down.

Now, there are passages in Genesis (but not all most later books) which arguably were transmitted orally for centuries before the writing down - but the creation account is not among these, since it's Moses' account of a vision he had on Sinai. Creation of Eve account, Fall account, Cain's murder account, yes, you would have transmission.

Now there is a very big difference between transmission over generations and the game described (though I seem to recall different rules, the game might be a different one). Transmit one text quickly, "say it only once" and retransmit without taking time to think, distortions are much more prone to happen than if you allow the learner to lear it slowly and repeat until he has mastered it, one sentence at a time and the sentences put down together as well. That very much other game some Anglicans and Lutherans may also know, it is used when learning the Our Father or the Creed, and Catholics do it too, and so do, I suppose, the Orthodox. Between the one teaching and the ones learning, there is not much room for a discrepancy of the text, and those who would make a mistake would not be the ones whom God chose for the transmitting.

Adam and Eve could tell about the Genesis 3 event to Seth, to Enos, and a few more, but if Cainan (the first Cainan, if there was a second one) had a brother who made a mistake when learning it, it was Cainan who was chosen to be the father of Malaleel, and if Jared had a brother who learnt it wrong, it was Jared who was chosen to be father of Henoch, who will probably be companion to the Second forerunner. It's not common to hear someone say "Our Mother" or "Our Parent" instead of "Our Father" and some have pretended, those who do are not doing so by lack of learning abilities, but by ideology, feminism or inclusive speech. While Genesis 3 is longer than an Our Father and even than a Nicene Creed, it is not by very much.

Now for the answer given
by Brian D. McLaren,
I will only deal with relevant phrases, and not quote all. First, is he qualified?

"I grew up in a strict fundamentalist sect of Christianity, so I’m in a pretty good position to try to answer it."

He'd perhaps be in an excellent position to answer how fundamentalists motivate inerrancy of quotes, and many of them probably the way I did above. But the answers he will give is what he now considers the "real reasons" behind that, and having grown up among people who didn't quite accept or even know these supposedly "real reasons" is not an excellent qualification for knowing them to be true.

"I think there are at least three answers: historical, psychological, and social. ... For now, it makes sense to begin with history."

Fundamentalist sects among often Baptist Protestants are not excellent at Church history anyway, that also goes for those who remain in them, see my article with links to articles about CMI not being excellent Church historians, it is a page on the top space of this blog:

Weakness of CMI : Church History
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/p/weakness-of-cmi-church-history.html

And in fact, McLaren will not give an excellent Church history now that he has left this sect either.

"In the 1400’s the Christian countries of Europe found themselves in a series of wars with Islam. ... So here’s what he did: he gave the kings of Europe a carte blanche or blank check to colonize the world, to enslave all non Christian nations and expropriate their wealth."

I am sorry ... what exact document is he talking about?

First, "enslave a non Christian nation" may be taken two ways : enslave its nationhood as in abolishing the sovereignty (as Allies did to Germany in 1945) and to enslave its individual citizens, abolishing their statuses as free citizens (as the Allies did not do to the Germans, apart from war criminal suspects).

There is in fact one document or a close series of them that gives exactly one Christian nation, the Portuguese, the right to actually take slaves, namely in Africa. Romanus pontifex, one of some papal bulls of Pope Nicolas V, Portugal, 8 January 1455. This was as retaliation for Africans taking Christian slaves, up in the North where they were Muslims. Abusively, this was applied further South as well, when the people taken as slaves hadn't been doing piracy to take Christian ones. As this document is a document to one country, not to Spain, it is not infallible, and there was error in supposing Africans in what is now Angola or Moçambique could be taken as slaves by retaliation for Moorish piracy against Christians in the Mediterranean. But it is not doctrinally erroneous that if you prosper on taking Christian slaves or on your neighbours doing so, you have deserved even death penalty (Exodus 21:16) and therefore also penal slavery. There is still penal slavery for slave hunting today, just that these penal slaves are not likely to call someone "Massa" they are likelier to assemble toys behind bars or work on roads in orange uniforms - they have a prison system rather than an owner or master telling them what to do. In either case, the Catholic view of it is, a slave who has deserved slavery as penalty for a crime is only slave about some things and remains free about other thing. You can ask such a man to clean the toilets, you can deprive him of comforts for not cleaning the toilets, but you can't use him for medical experiments. You can't take away his balls or any other body part. The Portuguese were not running the evil sterilisation programs of South Carolina or Alabama (which were anyway started after the at least nominal end of black slavery in 1865).

Second, no other document than those of Nicolas V involves reducing "their persons" to slavery, but one can reduce states to non-sovereignty (as the Allies agreed in 1945), for instance Alexander VI in a preparatory division of new discoveries between Spain and Portugal, leading up to the actually secular ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

And third, this has not much bearing on literalism in Bible exegesis. St. Augustine didn't wait for the Treaty of Tordesillas to state that the Ark had to be taken both literally and symbolically (last chapter of book 15 of City of God).

"But for the Reformation to work, it needed to justify its existence apart from the Catholic hierarchy. It did so by appealing to the Bible. The Bible alone (sola scriptura) became the rallying cry of the Reformers."

The Reformation starting in Germany under Luther:

• involved a country with no overseas possessions or back then even ambitions : Saxony is very landlocked, and as for secularised Teutonic order possessions, the takeovers in the Baltic had started way before the Treaty, hence no envy at Spain and Portugal involved, not to mention that quite a few Catholic countries felt perfectly free to dismiss Papal orders about secular and contingent political matters, even without any Reformation;
• and this Reformation (like the twin one in Switzerland?) didn't rely all that much on sola scriptura, as formal principle, erroneous as it is. For once that Luther stated that, he stated sola fide as material principle about individual salvation 60 times (it can be counted and has been counted, I take the reckon from a former Lutheran convert to Catholicism).

N o t to m e n t i o n ... sola scriptura and literal inerrancy are not the same. The latter being found in plenty of Church Fathers and Scholastics well before the Reformation.

Historia fundamentum est, cujus tres sunt species: annalis, kalendaria, ephimera . Allegoria paries superinnitens, quae per factum aliud factum figurat. Tropologia, doma culmini superpositum, quae per id quod factum est quid a nobis sit faciendum insinuat . Prima planior, secunda acutior, tertia suavior: sumitur allegoria quandoque a persona, ut Isaac significat Christum; etiam David quandoque hoc modo significat Christum. ... Tropologia est sermo conversivus, pertinens ad mores animi; et magis movet quam allegoria, quae pertinet ad Ecclesiam militantem, anagoge ad triumphantem et ad Domini trinitatem.

History is the foundation, of which there are three kinds : annals, kalendars, ephemeral [whatever this distinction means]. Allegory is the wall supported above it, which by one fact figures another fact. Tropology is the roof superposed on top, which by what has been done insinuates what is to be done by us. The first is planer, the second more subtle, the third sweeter: allegory is sometimes taken from a person, like Isaac signifies Christ; even David sometimes signifies Christ. ... Tropology is a sermon for converting, pertaining to the habits of the mood; and moves more than allegory, which pertains to the Church militant, [while] anagogue to the Church triumphant and to the Trinity of the Lord.

Is this Doctor Martin of Wittenberg? No. Is the author involved in the Treaty of Tordesillas? No. Peter the Eater (Petrus Comestor) died 22 October 1178. And he called Biblical history ... history, and said that this is the plain, not the subtle reading. I quoted the intro to his Historia scholastica.

"The leaders of the Enlightenment realized that people quoting the Bible could do a lot of harm — burning witches, launching wars, and the like. ... Suddenly, the Protestants were left vulnerable. Since they had used the Bible to legitimize their break from Rome, many of them doubled down on the Bible when they were threatened by the Enlightenment rationalists. This tradition, of doubling down on the Bible as a sole source of authority, is the lineage of fundamentalism today."

It is perhaps the lineage of Protestant fundamentalism today, but it is not the lineage of inerrancy. If I enjoy inerrancy in the lineage of Peter the Eater, it is not cut off from that lineage by a Protestant reaction against the Enlightenment, sound as it is, much sounder than their erstwhile Reformation reaction against Catholicism anyway.

"When Charles Darwin and Karl Marx raised uncomfortable scientific and economic questions in the 19 Century, they answered them by doubling down on the Bible even more. When Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein raised uncomfortable questions of psychology and physics in the 20th Century, they did the same."

It seems McLaren at least never answered Freud by saying "how do you know?" Which is how CSL answered him in for instance The Pilgrim's Regress. Because the formula "X raises an incomfortable question, Y answers by Z" is Freudian gobbledigook for dismissing Y stating Z by pretending to know the why, why Y stated Z, and to put it down to the discomfort of a question, not to a rational approach to it, as if answering it were like scratching an itch, not like solving a problem.

This is obviously THE ultimate ad hominem.

"When Walter Rauschenbusch and Martin Luther King, Jr. raised uncomfortable questions about poverty and race, they did the same."

Here McLaren is lumping together all fundamentalists, Protestant and other, world wide, with some US Protestants (not necessarily even fundamentalists outside certain issues of race) who opposed Martin Luther King, Jr. His actual assassin was raised a Catholic and had lived a wild life (which is how some would characterise mine, like those who pretend I'm simply out of work, and prefer to ignore my writing).

Did I state Bulverism (Freudian approach applied outside strict analysis context) as THE ultimate ad hominem? Well something like reductio ad Hitlerum or as in this case ad racialistam is also a good tool for hatchet jobs.

"In my upcoming book, Do I Stay Christian?, I describe this use of the Bible not simply as anti-intellectualism, but as constricted intellectualism, an engagement of the intellect in the service of confirmation bias (and related biases)."

Thank you for constricted intellectualism, that's what we are encouraged to. Neither a constriction without intellect, nor a wildly roaming intellectualism open to apostasy. And confirmation bias, up to a degree, is simply another name for common sense. But some push confirmation bias beyond that in defense of rejecting a literal reading of the Bible (hint, could a Larry and especially a Brian here cited be concerned?)

But when it comes to intellectual genealogies, I have my fair share of studies, so Brian D. McLaren's wannabe Father Baskerville discourse in Name of the Rose doesn't just fall flat on me, it also is somewhat traceable ... to post 1950. Candidates for inventing "fundamentalism comes from Protestant sola scriptura" being:

• a 1960's Jesuit who wrote a book on "allegory" (as defined by Peter the Eater) where he also put modernist Bible scholarship (you know, Creation days as rehash of Enuma Elish, flood account as literary borrowing from Gilgamesh, all that stuff) into the mix as an excuse for (unlike Peter the Eater) throwing out literal historic truth;
• some 1970's Soviet Russian Orthodox bishops.

It can for instance NOT be traced to the Reformation times themselves, when there was a controversy between St. Robert Bellarmine and (I think) King James VI and I, since St. Bob didn't tell King Jim "you just believe in the Bible's literal truth, because you want an excuse to persecute Irish and English Catholics" nor to the Council of Cologne in 1860's - or to Cardinal Oddi (if it wasn't Ottaviani) who took measures (subverted by the rejection of the preparatory schemata) to get Biblical creation dogmatised at Vatican II council (but only partly so, since § 3 of Dei Verbum gives a fairly clear Young Earth Creationist scenario).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Lewis Mary Grignon de Montfort
28.IV.2022

* https://progressingspirit.com/2022/04/28/do-you-create-or-do-you-destroy-evil-at-our-doors/

Radioactivity and cloud cover - two quotes

A few years ago, I found a site saying something about ionising particles and cold weather, and I entered into a correspondence with the author over if this could be part of the explanation for the Ice Age (the one post-Flood Ice Age). I confronted the author with the fact I was taking the correspondence onto my Correspondence blog. He didn't quite like it. However, there was, at the moment, not much he could do about it.

I just needed the reference again, and couldn't find it, neither with "ice age" nor with "ionising particles" neither here nor on the correspondence blog. What do I do? Weep tears over blogger possibly taking down the post? No. I search for confirmation of the fact elsewhere. Here are two sites saying so:

Galactic cosmic rays have been positively correlated to the Earth’s low cloud cover. It is now evident that cosmic ray ionization is linked to lowering nucleation barriers and promoting early charged particle growth into the Aitken range. There is a substantially high probability that some of the charged particles grow to the 100 nm range and beyond to become CCN. There is also evidence that electrically charged aerosol are more efficiently scavenged by cloud droplets, some of which evaporate producing evaporation aerosol, which are very effective ice formation nuclei.

The assumption is made that artificially generated, corona effect ionization should act in much the same way as cosmic ray ionization, with some differences that might make unipolar corona effect ionization a more powerful catalyzer of cloud microphysical processes and, consequently, climate. There is much further work required to understand the cause and effect relationship between artificial ionization and weather, including electrical, chemical and physical measurements at the nanoparticle level and beyond, as well as mathematical modeling to describe the observed, measured or hypothesized atmospheric phenomena at different levels of artificial ionization, and, hopefully equal levels of cosmic ray ionization.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/88063.pdf

Cosmic ray counts have increased over the past 50 years, so if they do influence global temperatures, they are having a cooling effect.

While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at their highest on record.

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

What Shall we Say on Origen?

What Did Origen Really Say? · What Shall we Say on Origen?

The Greek and Latin versions do not seem to raise different issues. I'll take only the Greek one.

16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles — as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason.

Note, his "reason" seems to be "common sense" and not modern science, as the examples will show.

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?

Time is measured by the movement of these heavenly bodies around earth but essentially by the movement of heaven, when went on even before these bodies were created, and in which God had planted a light.

And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

While day-light is now shown to us by the sky, the thing is, it shone.

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life?

Here Origen goes into Platonising overemphasis on spirituality.

First, while God no doubt gave Adam a well ordered organism with soul obeying Him and getting obedience from the body to a degree we cannot imagine, and the garden could signify this, nevertheless Adam and then Eve also were bodily beings who lived in an actual place. And why should this place not mirror the dispositions of who was living there?

And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree?

Here Origen seems to deny the sacramental principle. He is, fortunately, not in this denial when discussing the Eucharist:

Origen (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)


We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)

But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a 'commemoration' which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that 'Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,' that shewbread which 'God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,' and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist
by Fr. Burns K. Seeley, S.S.J.C., Ph.D.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm

So, how would Origen have answered someone saying one cannot be sanctified by masticating the Host? Well, the tree of life is a pre-figuration of Christ as "the true bread", and therefore God would have provided immortality by masticating the fruit of that tree, according to some kind of sacramental arrangement made by God without any preceding prayer by the Church.

And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

If Adam and Eve could talk to God, it is more likely, God appeared in a theophany, with similar traits as Jesus Christ had as true Man. Let's hope Origen by "in appearance" meant "through a theophany" and "not literally" meaning it was not the three persons and fulness of divinity which was limited to the place in a manner allowing it to be seen, it was a theophany. But I am afraid, he may not even have believed in a theophany.

Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him.

Same observation, though t could also be a question no more of a visible outer theophany as of God speaking in the inner mind of a man, through his imagination, in which case Cain might have simply stopped being quiet to listen to what God had to say.

And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?

Well, if each item, where Origen denies literal occurrence of the story, actually allows it, this would no doubt also be the case with those "countless" other ones he hints at.

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

I have already given a conspectus of the Church Father responses in the previous one. Let's resume.

From the high mountain (which could be in geography or an arrangement made by angelic willpower as to the matter), the Devil could have said "there in the South you have Arabia, and a little to the right Egypt, turn to the left now, you see the direction of Edom, Moab and Ammon, then Persia, Bactria, India, the land of Seres from which the rare silk comes and a land on islands which has fairer skin but same slit eyes as the Seres, and who value warriors more, like the Romans do, beyond them is a sea wider than the mediterranian, and beyond that sea lives a people who all these peoples do not know" or he could have shown the kind of techniques he uses to dominate men into sin, or he could have used some kind of angelically arranged tele-vision to show Our Lord actual moving pictures of Beduins from ravines in Edom or of people in Persian trousers on horsebacks in Persia, which technique could also have been used to tell Our Lord of his techniques of domination. So, no impossibility. It's not the Gospel story, but the common sense objection, which actually cannot stand once you scrutinise it.

And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

As with countless previously, so with innumerable here.

...All these statements have been made by us, in order to show that the design of that divine power which gave us the sacred Scriptures is, that we should not receive what is presented by the letter alone (such things being sometimes not true in their literal acceptation, but absurd and impossible), but that certain things have been introduced into the actual history and into the legislation that are useful in their literal sense.

I suspect a scribe has here altered "useless in the literal sense" to "useful" - otherwise the passage doesn't make sense. If this is so, this correction shows how "far out" Origen was in comparison to other Church Fathers (early or late).

As to "not receive what is presented by the letter alone" I'd prefer "not alone receive that which is presented by the letter" - that being obviously St. Augustine's take on it. Let's go to his view on the Deluge:

Chapter 27.— Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.

Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church. For what right-minded man will contend that books so religiously preserved during thousands of years, and transmitted by so orderly a succession, were written without an object, or that only the bare historical facts are to be considered when we read them? For, not to mention other instances, if the number of the animals entailed the construction of an ark of great size, where was the necessity of sending into it two unclean and seven clean animals of each species, when both could have been preserved in equal numbers? Or could not God, who ordered them to be preserved in order to replenish the race, restore them in the same way He had created them?

But they who contend that these things never happened, but are only figures setting forth other things, in the first place suppose that there could not be a flood so great that the water should rise fifteen cubits above the highest mountains, because it is said that clouds cannot rise above the top of Mount Olympus, because it reaches the sky where there is none of that thicker atmosphere in which winds, clouds, and rains have their origin. They do not reflect that the densest element of all, earth, can exist there; or perhaps they deny that the top of the mountain is earth. Why, then, do these measurers and weighers of the elements contend that earth can be raised to those aerial altitudes, and that water cannot, while they admit that water is lighter, and more likely to ascend than earth? What reason do they adduce why earth, the heavier and lower element, has for so many ages scaled to the tranquil ether, while water, the lighter, and more likely to ascend, is not suffered to do the same even for a brief space of time?

They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origen has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7:22 who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.

As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words every creeping thing of the earth only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said male and female, no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, They shall come unto you, Genesis 6:19-20 — not, that is to say, by man's effort, but by God's will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, They shall be male and female. For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has male and female.

Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals — whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities — the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.

This is from his work City of God, book 15
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

My own view on the dimensions of the Ark does not appeal to a cubit six times as long as "ours."

19. But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that no history is real because a certain one is not; and that no law is to be literally observed, because a certain one, (understood) according to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses; or that no commandment and precept of His ought to be obeyed — we have to answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us

The danger is a very real one, as we see from the current apostasy.

that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph; and that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements.

Ah, quand même, as they say here!

Origen would not have felt at home with those who consider the patriarch's graves to be and to have always been cenotaphs. They may have become so, since the righteous of the Old Testament rose in the darkness of Good Friday, if that was their final resurrection - but perhaps it was just a passing resuscitation.

For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification.

Tell me more, tell me more ...

And again, who would not say that the command which enjoins to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is useful, apart from all allegorical meaning, and ought to be observed, the Apostle Paul also having employed these very same words?

Exactly.

And what need is there to speak of the (prohibitions), You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness?

Figurative laws would have on St. Thomas Aquinas' view have been such ritual laws on the Old Testament that have ceased to oblige, but unlike Origen, he considers they did literally oblige back then.

And again, there are commandments contained in the Gospel which admit of no doubt whether they are to be observed according to the letter or not; e.g., that which says, But I say unto you, Whoever is angry with his brother, and so on.

Here, some people have since taken a less rigorist stance.

And again, But I say unto you, Swear not at all.

Dito.

And in the writings of the apostle the literal sense is to be retained: Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men; although it is possible for those ambitious of a deeper meaning to retain the profundities of the wisdom of God, without setting aside the commandment in its literal meaning.

Oh, that section is totally exempt from non-literality. Note, the language of St. Paul was an ecclesiastical language, where one tried to be precise and where therefore figurative speech was excluded when it could cause doubt, perhaps even when it couldn't. The language of Catholic dogma is heir to this kind of literality.

The careful (reader), however, will be in doubt as to certain points, being unable to show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures, carefully ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far impossible; and so far as he can, trace out, by means of similar statements, the meaning everywhere scattered through Scripture of that which cannot be understood in a literal signification.

If a member is tempting you, cut it off ... Origen seems to have taken this too literally with his own genitals - he is not a canonised saint - and so he could have some kind of reason to ponder this point ... nope, we are not skoptsy.

Overall, Origen is slightly heterodox, and this means it is putting things in exactly reverse perspective to the true one to appeal concretely from St. Augustine to Origen while pretending in principle to shun taking one Church Father who has his own line and to favour the line where Church Fathers actually meet. It is noteworthy that the timeline of Biblical history does not at all figure among his criticisms of the litteral sense after the six days of creation, and that his criticism there is to make them into one moment, not an accomodation for deep time. He was, still, a Young Earth Creationist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Monday
18.IV.2022

What Did Origen Really Say?

What Did Origen Really Say? · What Shall we Say on Origen?

Here is a little remark on the text : the translation for the first 23 chapters of book IV (De Principiis) are different from Latin and from Greek.

Here is a text, as translated from Greek:

16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles — as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

...

... All these statements have been made by us, in order to show that the design of that divine power which gave us the sacred Scriptures is, that we should not receive what is presented by the letter alone (such things being sometimes not true in their literal acceptation, but absurd and impossible), but that certain things have been introduced into the actual history and into the legislation that are useful in their literal sense.

19. But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that no history is real because a certain one is not; and that no law is to be literally observed, because a certain one, (understood) according to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses; or that no commandment and precept of His ought to be obeyed — we have to answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph; and that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements. For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification. And again, who would not say that the command which enjoins to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is useful, apart from all allegorical meaning, and ought to be observed, the Apostle Paul also having employed these very same words? And what need is there to speak of the (prohibitions), You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness? And again, there are commandments contained in the Gospel which admit of no doubt whether they are to be observed according to the letter or not; e.g., that which says, But I say unto you, Whoever is angry with his brother, and so on. And again, But I say unto you, Swear not at all. And in the writings of the apostle the literal sense is to be retained: Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men; although it is possible for those ambitious of a deeper meaning to retain the profundities of the wisdom of God, without setting aside the commandment in its literal meaning. The careful (reader), however, will be in doubt as to certain points, being unable to show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures, carefully ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far impossible; and so far as he can, trace out, by means of similar statements, the meaning everywhere scattered through Scripture of that which cannot be understood in a literal signification.

And from Latin:

16. Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists and apostles. For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

...

... The object of all these statements on our part, is to show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it — a thing which we see to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result; but that we are to understand that certain occurrences were interwoven in this visible history, which, when considered and understood in their inner meaning, give forth a law which is advantageous to men and worthy of God.

19. Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were written of the Saviour to have been fulfilled in a manner palpable to the senses; or that His commandments are not to be literally obeyed. We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances. For who can deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as well as Isaac and Jacob, and each of their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph? or that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, on which the temple of God was built by Solomon? — and countless other statements. For the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning. Then, again, who would not maintain that the command to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is sufficient of itself without any spiritual meaning, and necessary for those who observe it? Especially when Paul also has confirmed the command by repeating it in the same words. And what need is there to speak of the prohibitions, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, and others of the same kind? And with respect to the precepts enjoined in the Gospels, no doubt can be entertained that very many of these are to be literally observed, as, e.g., when our Lord says, But I say unto you, Swear not at all; and when He says, Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart; the admonitions also which are found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men, and very many others. And yet I have no doubt that an attentive reader will, in numerous instances, hesitate whether this or that history can be considered to be literally true or not; or whether this or that precept ought to be observed according to the letter or no. And therefore great pains and labour are to be employed, until every reader reverentially understand that he is dealing with divine and not human words inserted in the sacred books.

NewAdvent : Origen : De Principiis (Book IV)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

On 31.III.2022 (a day on which I was robbed), a John Hunt had said:

There are hundred, thousands of Bronze Age creation myths, sure. But they’re impossible to take literally today (it was tough enough in the third century AD, as one of the key Early Church Fathers, Origen, said -And who is so stupid as to imagine that God planted a garden in Eden eastward, and put in it a tree of life, which could be seen and felt?)

He refused to give a reference, and so could gloss over that Origen mainly thought Biblical history historic*. But "history" may also be a category not just on a lean cure as in Origen, but actually lacking from the vocabulary of Kirill of Moscow, on this issue:

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia believes science and religion do not contradict each other, as they respond to different questions, and there is no sense in searching an answer to spiritual questions in works on Physics or Biology.

BIO-ORTHODOXY : Patriarch Kirill of Russia: "It is naive to read Genesis as the texbook on anthropogenesis"
http://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2016/08/patriarch-kirill-of-russia-it-is-naive.html

In the article he is quoted mentioning "anthropogenesis", "physics", "biology", "spiritual questions" as well as "textbook" - but he never mentioned either "history" or "chronicle". I am here not concerned with his arguably believing Adam had physical ancestry and arguably dodging the question how this relates to Adam growing up with or without language, and how that affects spiritual questions**, but with the probability that, as at least nominally Eastern Orthodox (about as much as Bergoglio is Roman Catholic, Tony Palmer was Anglican) he probably thinks or hopes or pretends (to himself as to others) that he has patristic support for this. A little hint, the late Stephen J. Gould was a Jew, not a Christian. And (as is very often the case with them), a nominal one with little regard for actually setting out to believe what his ancestors or predecessors in the religion believed. He was also not a Church Father.

Now, the wording of Kirill, "it is naive" reminds a bit of Origen's (depending on what it is translated from) words in chapter 16 of book IV.

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east,

And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east,

Because you see, I don't think John Hunt was the first man to quotemine this, I have seen it quotemined again, with a little more context and actual reference, that's how I found the reference, and now, I intend to prove both that this was quotemining and that Origen is perhaps not the most representative of Church Fathers.

First, it is quotemining in omitting that Origen does believe in such a thing as Biblical history - it is just a bit peppered or has cherries on the cake with non-literal episodes. Taking this as "you can't take Genesis literally" is - I won't say "literally", I resist this temptation of a pun - cherry-picking.

Second, it is quotemining in omitting that Origen applies this to the New Testament as well, for instance the episode in Luke 4 and Matthew 4, as he mentioned it:

the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men?

Third, this leads up to a test on how representative Origen is of the Church Fathers. You see, we can quote a lot of different Church Fathers on both Matthew 4 and Luke 4, taken together in conspectus, namely in a magnificent work by St. Thomas Aquinas, whom Kirill is of course not admitting either patristic orthodoxy or personal canonisable sainthood of. Actually, Matthew 4 makes Origen himself more reasonable than above quote.

Let us first see the verses 8 to 11 in the Bible:

Matthew 4 : [8] Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, [9] And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. [10] Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. [11] Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him.

And here come the Fathers:

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. The Devil, left in uncertainty by this second reply, passes to a third temptation. Christ had broken the nets of appetite, had passed over those of ambition, he now spreads for Him those of covetousness; He taketh him up into a very high mountain, such as in going round about the earth he had noticed rising above the rest. The higher the mountain, the wider the view from it. He shews Him not so as that they truly saw the very kingdoms, cities, nations, their silver and their gold; but the quarters of the earth where each kingdom and city lay. As suppose from some high ground I were to point out to you, see there lies Rome, there Alexandria; you are not supposed to see the towns themselves, but the quarter in which they lie. Thus the Devil might point out the several quarters with his finger, and recount in words the greatness of each kingdom and its condition; for that is said to be shewn whch is in any way presented to the understanding.

ORIGEN. (in Luc. Hom. 30.) We are not to suppose that when he shewed Him the kingdoms of the world, he presented before Him the kingdom of Persia, for instance, or India; but he shewed his own kingdom, how he reigns in the world, that is, how some are governed by fornication, some by avarice.

REMIGIUS. By their glory, is meant, their gold and silver, precious stones and temporal goods.

RABANUS. The Devil shews all this to the Lord, not as though he had power to extend his vision or shew Him any thing unknown. But setting forth in speech as excellent and pleasant, that vain worldly pomp wherein himself delighted, he thought by suggestion of it, to create in Christ a love of it.

GLOSS. (ord.) He saw not, as we see, with the eye of lust, but as a physician looks on disease without receiving any hurt.

JEROME. An arrogant and vain vaunt; for he hath not the power to bestow all kingdoms, since many of the saints have, we know, been made kings by God.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. But such things as are gotten by iniquity in this world, as riches, for instance, gained by fraud or perjury, these the Devil bestows. The Devil therefore cannot give riches to whom he will, but to those only who are willing to receive them of him.

REMIGIUS. Wonderful infatuation in the Devil! To promise earthly kingdoms to Him who gives heavenly kingdoms to His faithful people, and the glory of earth to Him who is Lord of the glory of heaven!

AMBROSE. (in Luc. c. iv. 11.) Ambition has its dangers at home; that it may govern, it is first others’ slave; it bows in flattery that it may rule in honour; and while it would be exalted, it is made to stoop.

GLOSS. (non occ.) See the Devil’s pride as of old. In the beginning he sought to make himself equal with God, now he seeks to usurp the honours due to God, saying, If thou wilt fall down and worship me. Who then worships the Devil must first fall down.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. With these words He puts an end to the temptations of the Devil, that they should proceed no further.

JEROME. The Devil and Peter are not, as many suppose, condemned to the same sentence. To Peter it is said, Get thee behind me, Satan; i. e. follow thou behind Me who art contrary to My will. But here it is, Go, Satan, and is not added ‘behind Me,’ that we may understand into the fire prepared for thee and thy angels.

REMIGIUS. Other copies read, Get thee behind me; i. e. remember thee in what glory thou wast created, and into what misery thou hast fallen.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Observe how Christ when Himself suffered wrong at the hands of the Devil, being tempted of him, saying, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, yet was not moved to chide the Devil. But now when the Devil usurps the honour of God, he is wroth, and drives him away, saying, Go thy way, Satan; that we may learn by His example to bear injuries to ourselves with magnanimity, but wrongs to God, to endure not so much as to hear; for to be patient under our own wrongs is praiseworthy, to dissemble when God is wronged is impiety.

JEROME. When the Devil says to the Saviour, If thou wilt fall down and worship me, he is answered by the contrary declaration, that it more becomes him to worship Jesus as his Lord and God.

AUGUSTINE. (cont. Serm. Arian. 29.) The one Lord our God is the Holy Trinity, to which alone we justly owe the service of piety.

AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, x. 1.) By service is to be understood the honour due to God; as our version renders the Greek word ‘latria,’ wherever it occurs in Scripture, by ‘service’ (servitus), but that service which is due to men (as where the Apostle bids slaves be subject to their masters) is in Greek called ‘dulia;’ while ‘latria,’ always, or so often that we say always, is used of that worship which belongs to God.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. The Devil, we may fairly suppose, did not depart in obedience to the command, but the Divine nature of Christ, and the Holy Spirit which was in Him drove him thence, and then the Devil left him. Which also serves for our consolation, to see that the Devil does not tempt the men of God so long as he wills, but so long as Christ suffers. And though He may suffer him to tempt for a short time, yet in the end He drives him away because of the weakness of our nature.

AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, ix. 21.) After the temptation the Holy Angels, to be dreaded of all unclean spirits, ministered to the Lord, by which it was made yet more manifest to the dæmons how great was His power.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. He says not ‘Angels descended from heaven,’ that it may be known that they were ever on the earth to minister to Him, but had now by the Lord’s command departed from Him, to give opportunity for the Devil to approach, who perhaps when he saw Him surrounded by Angels would not have come near Him. But in what matters they ministered to Him, we cannot know, whether in the healing diseases, or purifying souls, or casting out dæmons; for all these things He does by the ministration of Angels, so that what they do, Himself appears to do. However it is manifest, that they did not now minister to Him because His weakness needed it, but for the honour of His power; for it is not said that they ‘succoured Him,’ but that they ministered to Him.

GREGORY. (non occ. vid. in Ezek. 1:8. n. 24. in 1 Reg. 1:1. n. 1. 2.) In these things is shewn the twofold nature in one person; it is the man whom the Devil tempts; the same is God to whom Angels minister.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Now let us shortly review what is signified by Christ’s temptations. The fasting is abstinence from things evil, hunger is the desire of evil, bread is the gratification of the desire. He who indulges himself in any evil thing, turns stones into bread. Let him answer to the Devil’s persuasions that man does not live by the indulgence of desire alone, but by keeping the commands of God. When any is puffed up as though he were holy he is led to the temple, and when he esteems himself to have reached the summit of holiness he is set on a pinnacle of the temple. And this temptation follows the first, because victory over temptation begets conceit. But observe that Christ had voluntarily undertaken the fasting; but was led to the temple by the Devil; therefore do you voluntarily use praiseworthy abstinence, but suffer yourself not to be exalted to the summit of sanctity; fly high-mindedness, and you will not suffer a fall. The ascent of the mountain is the going forward to great riches, and the glory of this world which springs from pride of heart. When you desire to become rich, that is, to ascend the mountain, you begin to think of the ways of gaining wealth and honours, then the prince of this world is shewing you the glory of his kingdom. In the third place He provides you reasons, that if you seek to obtain all these things, you should serve him, and neglect the righteousness of God.

HILARY. When we have overcome the Devil and bruised his head, we see that Angels’ ministry and the offices of heavenly virtues will not be wanting to us.

AUGUSTINE. (De Cons. Ev. ii. 16.) Luke has not given the temptations in the same order as Matthew; so that we do not know whether the pinnacle of the temple, or the ascent of the mountain, was first in the action; but it is of no importance, so long as it is only clear that all of them were truly done.

GLOSS. (ap. Anselm.) Though Luke’s order seems the more historical; Matthew relates the temptations as they were done to Adam.

e-Catholic 2000 : Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aguinas : [Matthew] CHAP. 4
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-11.shtml#_Toc384506911

So, the other Church Fathers (and even Origen, here) differ on how the Devil showed Our Lord the kingdoms, but none of the scepticism of Origen was quoted, St. Augustine contradicted him - "we do not know whether the pinnacle of the temple, or the ascent of the mountain, was first in the action; but it is of no importance, so long as it is only clear that all of them were truly done," and the consensus clearly seems to be with St. Augustine. It is literally historic. The author who gives most spiritual lessons is also the one who gives a fairly "naive" explanation on how the showing was "truly done" - it is whoever, either St. John Chrysostom or someone else, wrote a book I do not know the title of, but which was formerly attributed to St. John Chrysostom and is by modern scholarship no longer attributed to him. In the original text of St. Thomas, it says "Chrysostomus super Matth." and only the translation into English adds any "pseudo" to this.

So, we would perhaps do well to consider following all of the Church Fathers or all except on occasions Origen, rather than Origen against all the rest - and if we see this choice made imperative in the Catena Aurea, we may from above quote from De Principiis giving the context on the remarks against literality of parts of Genesis 2 conclude that probably the other Church Fathers would not agree on that one either.

It is 50 minutes past midnight on Easter Sunday, Christ is Risen, Glorify Him, and now I am cutting off this part here, I will make another post referring to the same quotes and answering Origen's difficulties to literality.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Sunday
17.IV.2022

* According to Andrew Sibley, CMI, he specifically rejected long aeons in his Contra Celsum:

Origen, origins, and allegory
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 32(2):110–117, August 2018
https://creation.com/origen-origins-and-allegory

And you can check that claim here:

NewAdvent : Contra Celsum (Origen)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm

** A post with short résumés in French on my main blog also indexes the actual full length articles in English on this blog, on this matter, I need not repeat each argument separately for Kirill as well, it's enough to remind him:

New blog on the kid : Une série de posts sur mon blog créationniste-jeune-terre
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/03/une-serie-de-posts-sur-mon-blog.html

Some More Details with Carter

Robert Carter Made an Article on Carbon Dating · Some More Details with Carter

First, carbon dating relates to "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" through Richard III (in Shakespear's play with that name said to have uttred the phrase), since everything about Richard III except the carbon date said it really was Richard III, but the carbon date was "several decades off" ... explained through his eating meat rather than peas, and systematically getting carbon that's been out of the atmosphere a few years, one could add, if it was a thing back then, vintage wines. You drink a wine (or by now a whisky too) that's a decades old, you get carbon into your body of a decade ago. Or well water, if it was rich in calcium, since in that case you'd get part of your carbon through calcium carbonate in the water, which could be as old carbon as the Flood.

Now, two more technical details.

What is the mechanism for a low carbon-14 level right after the Flood?

Carter suggests, the carbon content was lowered at the Flood.

The other historical problem with carbon dating is that the Flood should have altered global carbon reservoirs. There is a massive amount of carbon buried in the fossil record (e.g., in the form of limestone, CaCO3). Much of this was once inside the earth (thus cut off from the processes that produce carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere). During the Flood, volcanism and tectonics would have released massive amounts of ‘old’ carbon into the atmosphere, thus diluting any carbon-14 that may have been present. The lower ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio will be interpreted as an older age.

There is in fact a second process that produces carbon-14, and it's not limited to the upper atmosphere. Radiation of certain types will add neutrons to carbon-12. And part of the Young Earth Creationist explanation for potassium argon dates is, in cases where there has been a measure of argon as argon-40 and not argon-39 (I think the normal isotope of argon is) that there was radioactivity during the Flood. So, the Flood would not have lowered the carbon-14 content, if anything it would have overall increased the level.

If any carbon-14 level just after the Flood is low, so will the carbon-14 level just before the Flood have been too.

A bit provocative, but what exactly was that carbon inside the earth stored as, before the Flood? Limestone? For, if so, there would have been limestone prior to the Flood and therefore potentially caves prior to the Flood.

What is the mechanism for a rising carbon-14 level after the Flood?

Carter suggests a falling intensity of the earth magnetic field.

If this were the case, the carbon-14 should be getting produced quicker now than just after the Flood, except on the diagram, Figure 6, it is depicted as fluctuating low "flow" after the Flood rising towards the Crucifixion and falling since then.

I cannot determine on my own what the exact levels of earth magnetism were, and the info is not easily obtainable everywhere on the internet, but I do know, the normal type of production of carbon-14, the one that's not tied to radioactivity on earth, has three factors.

Incoming factors are:

• number of incoming particles (directly proportional)
• energy of the incoming particles (directly proportional)
• strength of magnetic field (inversely proportional).

The output of these are

• carbon-14
• beryllium (or a certain isotope of it?)
• radioactivity on earth (normal level now being 0.34 milliSievert per year on average height of inhabited places).

Now, the radioactivity would have been a factor in lowering the lifespans just after the Flood (deteriorates the genome and - if inherited - length of telomeres), and it would also have contributed to a colder weather, hence the post-Flood Ice age. It was this "factor" which led me onto the search for how carbon-14 rose after the Flood. I had been challenged when recreating on campus outside the university library of Nanterre that the model proposed by inter alios Edgar Andrews and Kent Hovind of a rising carbon-14 level in the atmosphere would have as cause so much solar activity as to have as other consequence the total wipeout of vertebrate life on earth - everything except spiders would be dead.

Note that radioactivity on earth and carbon-14 production are related, but not in a totally straightforward fashion. It's not as easy as taking the higher production rate of carbon-14 and plugging in that factor in times 0.34 milliSievert, as I thought at first, it's not a linear, not a square and not a cubic function, both carbon-14 and radioactivity being functions of something else.

And on this account, I have asked Ilya Usoskin* to make a modelling on his computer program to determine the carbon-14 and radioactive outputs for

• each incoming factor changed by two (twice the directly proportional ones, half the magnetic field strength)
• by three
• by four

I wanted to see if my needed level of carbon-14 rise (heighest at c. 11 times present rate, at Babel) is compatible with a radioactivity levels that are not past a global 20 milliSievert per year. Hence the need for Ilya Ususkin's computer model.*

While I do not claim to have the answers for each single factor, what were the changes, I do claim to have a reasonable estimate of the overall effect on carbon-14 production from the other end, namely resulting carbon dates for finds of known Biblical age** that being of course the real age. And presuming my matches between Bible and digs are reasonably good.

The carbon-14 level at the Flood shows, carbon-14 was produced less intensely before the Flood. Actually, if the overall CO₂ level in the atmosphere before the Flood was higher, this would have diluted an equal amount of carbon-14 to make for less "carbon-14 production" as I count it, namely in pmC. If there was twice as much overall atmospheric carbon, an equal production would have counted as half as much in pmC terms. However, I doubt the idea the overall CO₂ level was 10 times as high, and it appears from Neaderthals and Denisovans carbon dated to at most recent 40 000 BP, that the carbon-14 level at the Flood was 10 times lower than expected : 1.4 pmC rather than the c. 16 pmC that would by present factors be expected even with zero pmC starting to rise on day 4.

And after the Flood, removing carbon from the atmosphere would not by itself explain all of the quicker production, since that rise would be compensated by a fall as carbon came back to the atmosphere, or if it hasn't, this doesn't explain why the carbon-14 production - counted in pmC, in relation to carbon-12 in the atmosphere - was on average ten times as high from Flood to end of Babel as now, six times as high from end of Babel to Genesis 14, three times as high from Genesis 14 to burial of Joseph's pharao Djoser ...

I am not confident that variations in the magnetic field would account for all the difference. In my world view, it doesn't need to. All stars are moved by angels*** (under the overall daily movement westward performed by God turning the aether around us each day) and arguably God also gave them power over the cosmic rays the stars emit:

War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

From the canticle of Deborah and Barak, in Judges 5, this being verse 20. It clearly refers to angels (fought against Sisara - confer the twelve legions that Christ didn't summon but could have) and as clearly refers to heavenly bodies (if stars had just been a poetic word for angels, or as Michael Heiser would have it, a word for them describing their essence rather than function, why add "remaining in their order and courses" meaning orbits and participation in the daily orbit of the universe).

Hence, a variation that's even very important as to input of cosmic rays and that one ordered by God and intended to shorten lifespans, is entirely possible to me. But my tables encode the resulting carbon-14 levels at different times, not the causality of them, and that level is determinable once you have a carbon date and a real date.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Morning of Maundy Thursday
14.IV.2022

* Here : Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

** There are a few things to say about St. Jerome's chronology as extant in Eusebius, in Historia Scholastica, and since late 1400's in the liturgic reading used in Rome and since Trent all over the Catholic world. Genesis 5 = LXX (2242 between Creation and Flood). Genesis 11 = LXX without the second Cainan (942 years between Flood and Birth of Abraham). Short stay in Egypt (Exodus is 505 = 75 + 430 after birth of Abraham). Space between Exodus event and Temple of Solomon exceeds 480 years, probably either from another text for III Kings or for considering the count of 480 omits "bad years" - for instance, if the priests refused to count a year in which a foreign occupation had stopped them from celebrating Easter in the Tabernacle. Hence Exodus in 1510 BC and not temple but anointing of King David in 1032 BC. I have tried to fix this from Syncellus who had temple in 1032 BC (meaning carbon dates for temple beams for 940 BC show the trees lived in an atmosphere with more than 100 pmC), but this might not be necessary. If a literal 480 years is correct, it seems Judges does not have a single timeline, but involves more than one overlapping ones (a bit like Ruth doesn't add to Judges but overlaps with it).

*** Whether along the zodiac for those known traditionally as "planets" or in other ways, like "aberration X parallax X proper movement" for fix stars and exo-planets.

Robert Carter Made an Article on Carbon Dating

Robert Carter Made an Article on Carbon Dating · Some More Details with Carter

How carbon dating works
by Robert W. Carter | Published: 12 April 2022
https://creation.com/how-carbon-dating-works

Basically, it is good that he acknowledges that carbon dating is good science.

It is also good that he gives a kind of Biblical calibration.

30 000 BP is given as Antediluvian - which should give him a warning signal about classifying Neanderthals as post-Flood, as he did elsewhere. Latest carbon date associated with body parts of Neanderthals would be 40 000 BP. Yes, I know the Gorham cave on Gibraltar has a carbon date of 28 000 BP, but that is of charcoals. And the Neanderthal association seems to be by tools.

For my own part, I have 40 000 BP / 38 000 BC as the carbon date of the Flood, based precisely on Neanderthals being pre-Flood, with parts of the genome surviving via the Ark, but only via "mixed race" persons.

4000 BC is given for Abraham. I'd give that for Abraham's birth. Here is the discussion he gives:

The date for Abraham is in the range of carbon dates for the Chalcolithic (6,000 YBP), because we know that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived in Beersheba and the latest archaeological evidence for intensive grain cultivation (Genesis 26:12) in the region is from the Chalcolithic (aka, the Copper Age).

Now, it could be that Isaac sowed well after "4000 BC" as the carbon date goes, while the latest archaeological evidence for intensive grain cultivation is from before his times.

In my tables, 4000 BC isn't a specific node, but coincides roughly with the birth of Abraham. He was born 2015 BC, and in my tables*, the two carbon date values surrounding 4000 BC are at 2019 and 1996 BC:

2019 B. Chr.

0.778962 pmC/100, so dated as 4069 B. Chr.

1996 B. Chr.

0.790927 pmC/100, so dated as 3946 B. Chr.

What age would Isaac have been in Genesis 26? It was after Esau had sold his birthright, so Esau and Jacob would have been adults. Let's say Esau and Jacob were twenty years, that would make Isaac eighty years, and this would be 180 years after Abraham's birth. 2015 - 180 = 1835 BC.

1845 B. Chr.

0.845892 pmC/100, so dated as 3245 B. Chr.

1823 B. Chr.

0.850509 pmC/100, so dated as 3173 B. Chr.

Isaac sowing would have been dated as between 3245 and 3173 BC, if it had been traced. Note, he sowed in Gerar, which is one km away from Bersheba. In Bersheba, he found water and dug a well. Perhaps the archaeological digs were from Bersheba but not Gerar? If so, it would be interesting confirmation of my tables if the latest grain cultivation in Gerar were in carbon dated 3200 BC.

The relevant nodes for these would centre on Genesis 14 = carbon date "3500 BC" (as per reed mats from En-Gedi evacuation** with temple treasures), also clearly in the Chalcolithic, and as surrounding nodes to arrive at my values, I have end of Babel and Birth of Peleg (541 years before Abraham was born, c. 621 years before Genesis 14) as carbon dated 8600 BC, per identification of Babel as Göbekli Tepe; and the other surrounding node would be identifying Joseph's pharao (dying around 1700 BC) with Djoser, for whose coffin a raw carbon date is 2800 BC. Why with Djoser? Bc I identify Joseph with (slightly mythologised) Imhotep, see the Hunger Stele.

If you agreed on "3500 BC" as carbon date for Genesis 14 but took a later pharao (say Sesostris III, as a German did) as Joseph's pharao, this would mean Isaac sowing would be even more displaced in relation to Genesis 14, even more recent - if it has at all been detected. As it is after Genesis 14, other choices for Babel would not affect this.

I obviously disagree on the Shroud of Turin, while I have defended the soot contamination response, I think a better one might be the CalTech computer was hacked by some KGB agent who simply didn't want the Shroud of Turin to be proof of the Resurrection as a historic event.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Wednesday of Holy Week
13.IV.2022

* My tables are at latest update available on:

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

** I thank Osgood for identifying Chalcolithic of En-Gedi with Genesis 14 events on Asason-Tamar:

The Times of Abraham
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood | This article is from
Journal of Creation 2(1):77–87, April 1986
https://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham

"Christ-Focused"

"Reason for declining: Thanks for submitting to this Space. Unfortunately, we can't accept your submission at this time. Questions are to be Christ-focused and intended to bring Him Glory. Please see our submission guidelines."

I was actually asking a question, and without noticing "submitted to a space" on quora.

Now, what was the question?

Is Fathecht an eighth son of Japheth, or is "Fathecht son of Japheth" an euphemism for "Fathecht son of Magog son of Japheth"?
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-Fathecht-an-eighth-son-of-Japheth-or-is-Fathecht-son-of-Japheth-an-euphemism-for-Fathecht-son-of-Magog-son-of-Japheth

There is obviously a third possibility, Fathecht is the Gaelic name for a named son of Japheth, whether Magog or another one.

But I do not see how it would not intend to bring glory to Christ to inscribe the earliest population of Scotland ...

Scotland The Brave (Lyrics)
13th Febr. 2009 | Scottishtam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GowMI4wvmU4

... into the broad perspective of Genesis 10.

It is arguably "less flattering" to the Word eternal who is the Word of Truth to pretend Scotland was peopled while Adam lived elsewhere, and Genesis 10 is wrong, as I have seen a Frenchman (a supposed Catholic Theologian, Frédéric Kurzawa) do, when stating the origin of Cruithne mac Cinge must be wrong, because it involves a Biblical ancestor like Noah!

There is a kind of "feeling" in certain theological circles, every question needs to be in and of itself centred on Christ, no centres around centre around that Centre allowed, no epicircles allowed around the circle of questions related to Christ Himself directly. It's kind of the same aesthetics according to which Copernicus did away with a Geocentrism which he realised involved "epicircles" - too unaesthetic to him ... suffice it to say, Nicolas Copernic built no Gothic Cathedral and wrote no Gothic Summa or comment on the Sentences by Peter the Lombard. Neither, for that matter, did Erasmus.

So, while waiting to bring glory to Christ by tracing the Scots to Japheth through the appropriate grandson, I am at least upholding that Scotland's peopling in carbon dated 7000 BC corresponds to a generation statistic probable arrival of Cruithne mac Cinge in actual 2418 BC, and that the Pictish Kings do indeed descend from Noah through Japheth.

And I thankfully note, the Quoran question is still available, if anyone likes to answer it, since "submitting the question" to that space was just one "answer request" after the question was already posed to all of quora.

Seriously, this kind of narrowness does harm, and some guys will first be told to "stay Christ-focussed" and then, when those so telling them give no answers on issues of how Genesis 1 - 11 relate to science and to modern mainstream evolution biassed science (which is not the same thing as science, it's a paradogm within it), they will finish by losing the faith. Or, surviving despite such "pastoral" and supposed "Christ-centredness"./HGL

"Theological, Not Disinterested"

Without Excuse? · "Theological, Not Disinterested"

How Do We Interpret the Genesis Creation Accounts? w/ Fr. Jordan Schmidt, O.P. (Aquinas 101)
5th of April 2022 | The Thomistic Institute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Ik1ea8yUI

Fr. Jordan Smith, OP, gives a good overview over the accounts in Genesis 2, then Genesis 1. Now, it has the flaw of presenting the account of Genesis 2 as Adam created before the world he was meant to live in. But it also has the merit of presenting a parallel to Genesis 1 in the sevenfold repetitions in Exodus 40 and Leviticus 8 to 10.

Just as each creation day involves "God said, let there be x", then "and x was" and then "and God saw that x was very good", seven parts of the ritual process are described in Exodus 40 for the building of the tabernacle, in Leviticus 8 to 10 for the beginning of the rituals of the real Old Testament (which is now past). In each case (as I get the video, before looking up), there is a description of what happened, a summary claim that all was done according to God's instruction, and a manifestation of God's presence.

Then he makes a summary on the points made stating "the accounts are avowedly theological" - which is fine - "and not intended to be disinterested descriptions of the physical processes by which the universe came to be."

I am all too reminded of a certain strain in Liberal Theology in which the Gospels are not intended to be disinterested accounts of the historic life of Jesus and perhaps even Acts are not intended to be a disinterested account of the historic development of the Church.

The problem with this approach is, while natural science is according to its ideology supposed to be pursued in a disinterested way, historic accounts on the other hand are very rarely disinterested. You make a court room reconstruction of what happened on the day of a purported crime, the reconstruction is not disinterested (except as to which of the parties is to blame or if one is to blame or not, it shouldn't be blatantly partial), but its interest - even bias - is in accounting for the factors of the events that are relevant for the applicable laws on what you can and can't do and when one is or isn't responsible for what one does.

The fact that a text is not disinterested doesn't say it isn't objectively and factually true. The fact that Liberal Theologians I had to do with before I left the Swedish state Church (a few months before my actual conversion in 1988) are now echoed by Dominicans should make people pause if they think that the Vatican II Sect is the Roman Catholic Church./HGL

Without Excuse?

Without Excuse? · "Theological, Not Disinterested"

If people like "Pope Francis" or "Archbishop" Aupetit (right now retreating, without a successor as yet named) were trusting scientists, because they can't do science themselves, and therefore went overloyal to actual scientists, that would be some kind of excuse for being Evolutionists. Not an excellent good and sufficient one, perhaps, but some kind.

But if they are scientists, they can potentially also understand Creation Science.

Now, Michel Aupetit is a med student gone priest (insofar as Novus ordo has any) - not sure if he went as far as Med. Dr. - and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has a degree in chemistry. See this exchange between Rick Santorum and the said Antipope:

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum rebuked Pope Francis this week, saying the pope should “leave science to the scientists” with regard to the pontiff's remarks on climate change.

Pope Francis — who has a degree in chemistry — has said causing climate change is a sin because the Earth is God’s creation and should be protected. “Safeguard Creation,” he said in a speech last month. “Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us! Never forget this!”

Santorum to Pope Francis: 'Leave science to the scientists'
June 3, 2015, By Jane Timm
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/santorum-pope-francis-leave-science-the-scientists-msna609591

So, Aupetit is a Medical man like Carl Wieland, and Bergoglio is a chemist, like Jonathan Sarfati.

They cannot possibly claim Creation Science is above their heads!/HGL

I'm Tired

I may be getting sth wrong.

Robert Carter gets everything wrong?
Responding to even more ridiculous aspersions
Published: 10 July 2021 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/everything-wrong

I was just watching a review of traced, which deals with Y-chromosome haplogroups.

I skim over the main part of the paper, and see no mention.

But, if we talk of alleles, as the paper seems to, there is a similar answer on a point numbered three as if it applies to Y-chromosomes. The one that caught my attention when looking at the video on Traced:

3. He claims that our model requires any given mutation in the ‘target string’ to be fixed in sequence.

No, the mutations in the target string do not have to be fixed in sequence. Again, had any of them bothered to read the original paper this would not be an issue. Any incomplete set of target letters will independently float around in the population and multiple occurrences of any subset of the target sequence can arise at any time. Stepwise fixation is simply not required. Worse, it would work in the opposite way they think. The waiting time for a series of two or three one-letter mutations is less than the waiting time for a single two- or three-letter string. How can they claim to know what they are talking about when they do not even understand these basic ideas?

"Target string" seems to imply it involves one allele, placed in one of the two chromosomes I inherited from one of my two parents.

"Target sequence" seems to imply this too.

I'm sorry if I misunderstand Carter, but is he saying, a sequence (a gene) on one chromosome can recombine letters from two parents?

It's not his model, it's the reality of inheritance, that requires otherwise. You cannot have incomplete sets of target letters independently floating around in two parents and them recombining in one chromosome of their immediate offspring. A recombination in one chromosome in grandchildren would take a stunninig streak of luck, like a crossover between two chromosomes with the breaks occurring in each of them in the same place in the same gene.

But, as I am tired (second night bereft of a sleeping bag, I was apparently robbed where I am usually staying, while off to the internet), I may of course have misunderstood something.

Even so, I am posting it./HGL