Paraphrasing some points by PineCreek, when Talking to Southern Orthodox, Kyle - and Answering Him

I took a look at a long video, and only looked at a very short part of it. I will not attempt exact quotes. Here are the points as I would state them if I believed in Deep Time and Evolution, including explicitation of things PineCreek simply alluded to:

So many different people, of different religions, all except atheists believing in God, in so many countries believe Evolution.

It also involves so many different fields of study, independently of each other.

For it not to be true, you would need a huge conspiracy, how does it work?

You cannot say that it's because Evolution is already very popular and Deep Time is already very popular, since at one time it came to be popular after being very impopular.

You cannot say Scientists do it for the money, they aren't getting rich.

Basically, everyone was Biblical creationists and many independently found out this wasn't true.

Now, I will quote my own restatements and answer each. Because for all the goodwill of Kyle, and I didn't think he did bad, I think I have something to add.

So many different people, of different religions, all except atheists believing in God, in so many countries believe Evolution.

In 100 AD, a certain Ptolemy was born. Before he died, 70 years later, he was going to write Μαθηματικὴ Σύνταξις, which was later by Arabs nicknamed Almagest. It involved Geocentrism, and very many today believe he was wrong therein. But he could have said that Jews, Osiris worshippers, Baal worshippers, Greco-Romans Platonists, all believing in some kind of God, and also Lucrece who with his predecessors Epicure and Democritus who didn't independently believed Geocentrism.

He would not have used that as an argument, there are far stronger ones, like Geocentrism (of some sort) being what it looks like, and it's good methodology not to deviate from what it looks like before you have a good reason. Geocentrism is the default, Heliocentrism would be in need of specially good evidence in order to not be simply special pleading.

For the record, I believe this still stands.

But, suppose he had instead used "consensus" as an argument. By now there is also a consensus for the opposite side, and this means the two consensus' kind of cancel out. In fact, in history, geography and sociology combined, the one for Geocentrism would be broader. So, it would have been a bad idea. The one of economy in hypotheses is actually better. And by now, either Atheism proves Heliocentrism, or Geocentrism proves Theism, or both Theism and Heliocentrism stand on other grounds. So, Atheism doesn't make sense even as an economy in hypotheses, since it opposes another one, namely Geocentrism.

Now, to push what is being argued a bit further, one could add:

It also involves so many different fields of study, independently of each other.

So, the argument being made is not so much a consensus of opinion as a kind of untutored and not manipulated collusion of many types of evidence. This leading very many researchers independently in one specific direction and them finding unity from that independent arrival at the same conclusion.

What does PineCreek know of the history of ideas? Some, I suppose. He certainly knows the Middle Ages were Geocentric, Theocratic, Scholastic and Roman Catholic in Western Europe. He probably doesn't pretend they were Flat Earth. So, he would understand the history of ideas on the level of what successions of ideas were being made. That's on a level with my understanding of Evolution back when I believed it, before age 9 to 10. I could have given you the ancestry for a given clade, like land animals with birds from Crossopterygians, these leading to Amphibians, these leading to Reptiles and Reptiles budding off Birds and Mammals. But I could not have discussed fruitfully, I think, with either an Evolutionist who was also an expert in Biology or with a Creationist who was expert in biology, how mutations work.

I think the argument Pine Creek is making is about that naive when it comes to the history of ideas. It's like "mutations pop up at all times in all different directions, and always some are functional and even adding new function, so obviously natural selection only has to weed out the bad ones ..." - not counting on things I only found out after I entered the debate as an adult, some 20 years ago, like a certain fish in Mexican caves being blind because it needs ten functional genes for the retina to have both cones and taps that function, and two of the genes are damaged by not very many mutations - while each would probably have 100 + loci in its non-damaged form. It's easier to damage an eye than to repair one.

Now, to give you a more sophisticated idea of the history of ideas, paradigms on big topics actually precede small scientific detail observations. It may be set off by one such, like Siccar Point in this case, but before others come to its support, it already is a paradigm, which one is already trying to illustrate by more detail observations. Very precisely like Scholastics and up to Linnaeus were Christians before using detailed observations (like St. Albert's entomological ones) as support for it.

The thing is not that an establishment was biassed and that for Christianity and then became unbiassed, and then the evidence produced a new bias for evolution. The thing is that establishments changed bias. When doing so, they rearranged already existing observations into the new one, and then started arranging new evidence into the needed slots for supporting the new bias. On the individual level, such behaviour would be considered bad scientific practise. On the collective level, since collectives are only as smart as the smartness common to all or most constituents of them, this is inevitable. It may or may not have been inevitable to change the bias, but it was inevitable to have instututions mainly go on their bias, old or new.

But, paradigms have been successfully overturned, right?

From Maxwell's discovery of electro-magnetism, up to Mitchelson-Morley, light was considered as propagating through a medium called aether, a bit like sound propagates through gasses, liquids and solids. This was very quickly overturned at Mitchelson-Morley.

And this precise case should give a hint. Aether was not supported by a bias with emotional investment, it was supported solely because it was a good explanation. It was abandoned basically within a few years from when, by Michelson Morley, it collided with a stronger bias. Because, if aether were a fact (and perhaps it is, even a proven one, I refer here to Sungenis on the Sagnac effect), then earth has to stand still. If you swim through a river at same speed both upstreams and downstreams, with the same force used, it is because the water is not moving. And if the aether is not moving around earth, it is because earth itself is not moving.

What happened was not that you had value neutral evidence that on all possible hypotheses showed the old paradigm of light propagating through aether to be wrong. What did happen was, an experiment showed "either aether or heliocentrism is wrong" and everyone immediately concluding "aether is wrong" - which obviously happened because denial of geocentrism was already a dogma.

For it not to be true, you would need a huge conspiracy, how does it work?

No conspiracy at all. Just human good judgment of different persons in same collective not adding up, but subtracting. Knowledge adds up. The more people I get around me, the more probable it is I can finally find someone able to tell me exactly how many times over the course of the Julian calendar New Year's Day changed and exactly how many times given regions changed epoch between ab Urbe condita, Anno Mundi, Anno Domini, and therefore what years were leap years and what weren't.

You cannot say that it's because Evolution is already very popular and Deep Time is already very popular, since at one time it came to be popular after being very impopular.

I already suggested that at one time, for centuries, the paradigm was Christianity, specifically Catholic Christianity (but in fields related to this question, the Reformation had little change to add to the conversation, Steno was both sides of the Lutheran-Catholic divide, and he invented Geology in the shape of Flood Geology). I have also suggested to you that at one time, the paradigm was Heliocentrism. And I have already stated the principle, institutions don't cease to act on their bias, they may change bias, and then act on their new bias instead, but they are never without a bias.

In fact, when two paradigms are really competing, neither is the basic bias of the institution, it's something else. So, when Agassiz* and Darwin were debating, they were at least on some level sharing a bias. Which perhaps was and perhaps wasn't one a strict Fundie could share, but certainly was not limited to Fundies.

You cannot say Scientists do it for the money, they aren't getting rich.

Youtubers who get by through patreon are also not upper five % of the income of the US. They still don't want to offend their patrons.

Basically, everyone was Biblical creationists and many independently found out this wasn't true.

This is not how the shift happened. First, while many were still somewhat Christian, as Agassiz* shows, they weren't Biblical. Second, science and religion are not the only two fields involved here.

Let's speak of progressive politics and of freemasonry for a bit.

Once upon a time Luther and Calvin and Popes Leo X over St. Pius V were all of them Biblical Young Earth Creationists. Next century, Frederick V of the Palatinate and Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, were also both of them Young Earth Creationists. So were (even closer on) the Duke of Alba and the Prince of Orange, William the Taciturn. So were also both William Cromwell and Charles I.

There was a specific century in which many people came to see Christian confessions (or confessional diversity) as the reason for wars they had suffered horribly in - pretty much like the 20 - 25 % ex-Catholics saw Catholic clericalism as the reason or at least occasion for, well, sexual predation. I think I have made it clear it started at the start of the 80 Years' War and ended not before another William of Orange (William III of England, William II in both Scotland and Netherlands).

This experience in and of itself would not necessarily have worked for the kind of shift we are now contemplating. Working on a Catholic bias, its natural tendency would have been rather to enforce the Anti-Protestant bias of that Catholic. And indeed, it is nearly as much due to my sides-taking in these wars, as due to my theological bent for ritual, that I was to convert to Catholicism. On a Protestant mind, it could simply lead to what it indubitably led to, a reinforced Anti-Catholic bias. It certainly did that before William III of England was basically ordering the massacre of Glencoe.

But there was a third party. I am not totally against third party, in the US, that could perhaps even be quite useful. But this time, the third party was in fact even less Catholic than the Protestants were.

They started out with fairly "good intentions" on one plane - and probably all intentions, including Ted Bundy's on a killing spree are good on some plane. The one-plane good intention was to get kings away from the Catholic-Protestant vendetta and bring them to cultivating peace and useful things and happiness. But the bad idea was to get them away from both "Orthodox" Protestantism and Orthodox Catholicism. And in order to get "past" the Catholic-Protestant theological problem, they had to deny original sin, and deny Genesis 3. Perhaps not immediately, but at the very least reinterpret - or demote.

We get to Lessing's (a freemason's) Ring Fable, in which he suggested God was equally interested in all of Christian, Jewish and Muslim piety. But before we get there, we get to the Galileo case. And the Giordano Bruno case. Freemasonry and at least part of its precursor Rosicrucianism have been Heliocentric since basically making Bruno and Galileo part of their martyrology. One things Protestants and Catholics had in common back then was studying and getting inspired by martyrs. Both parties and probably all rosicrucians and freemasons in the early years would have considered Sts Peter and Paul martyrs. But Catholics would consider Pierre de Castelnau and Thomas More (with John Fisher) as martyrs. Anglicans would consider Cranmer and Tyndale martyrs. Calvinists would consider Waldensians and Albigensians as martyrs. What kind of martyrs would the third party have? Well, obviously "martyrs for science" - enter Bruno and Galileo into the pantheon of secular Great Men**

This sets the stage for an anti-Biblical bias. And one of the earliest freemasons, Desaguyliers, started out as a pluriconfessional Protestant clergyman's son and and a Newton fan.

Whether you put or don't put the French Revolution down to Freemasonry, you cannot deny certain of its works, like Declaration of the Rights of Citizens and Men, are very directly inspired by Masonic ideology. By the way, as I think 4th of August to be a more decisive date than 14th of July, and 4th of August was precisely a drafting of Masonic inspired Documents, I do fall down on the "Masons' Fault" side of the controversy.

Now, I am not saying that at each institution of science in Lyell's or Darwin's days, a freemason was pulling the strings. I am also not saying there wasn't any Masonic pressure. I am saying the Masons had created a culture, which looked down on Confessional and therefore Christian Orthodoxy. It can be added lots of people in the British royal house were Masons, and lots of or some US Presidents were Masons ... again, not saying they gave any secret orders to bolster Evolution with any and every argument, including the worst and most dishonest. I am saying they had created a culture in the Century of Enlightenment where the Lyellian and Darwinian Revolutions had become as thinkable as the French and American ones had been.

And that this came before specific arguments on the skull shape of Engis 2 or the fossil layers in the Paris basin.

Because, that's how paradigm shifts usually work. And if certain wars end soon, let's not be too eager to hail the peacemaker as a kind of saviour ... if he's a child of God, God will reward him without our exaggerated adulation. That's a takeaway from Freemasons creating Enlightenment. A big one, and an Apocalyptic one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Sabinus of Assisi with Companions
30.XII.2022

Spoleti item natalis sanctorum Martyrum Sabini, Assisiensis Episcopi, atque Exsuperantii et Marcelli Diaconorum, ac Venustiani Praesidis cum uxore et filiis, sub Maximiano Imperatore. Ex ipsis Marcellus et Exsuperantius, primum equuleo suspensi, deinde fustibus graviter mactati, postremnm, abrasi ungulis et laterum exustione assati, martyrium compleverunt; Venustianus autem non multo post, simul cum uxore et filiis, est gladio necatus; sanctus vero Sabinus, post detruncationem manuum et diutinam carceris macerationem, ad mortem usque caesus est. Horum martyrium, licet diverso exstiterit tempore, una tamen die recolitur.

* Who was a Creationist and confessionally a Christian, but very far from a Biblical or Young Earth Creationist, not really a Fundie by the standard of his times - be that noted in connexion with his racism! Both his not-quite-Biblical creationism and his racism may be put down to the fact he was son of the third generation of Swiss Protestant preachers ... And I suppose someone will try to blow bagpipes over this comment ... No True Sc...
** It would consider both Napoleon and Wellington as Great Men, no doubt too.

Wait, I Missed Something

Best evidence against Creationism · Wait, I Missed Something

First of the answers, by Pierre Vigoureux, he tucked some popular attacks into a very small sentence:

And that is the best evidence you can use AGAINST their “creation science” nonsense. It is just Babylonian mythology - and they WILL ask thousands of questions like “how do evolutionists explain …” and never listen to the answer until you remind them of that - that Genesis says the world is flat, the Garden of Eden is in Iraq, Noah transported all the millions of species we have today on a Bronze Age wooden boar, and Adam and Eve had children that commited incest.

I'll break each part down ...

It is just Babylonian mythology -

First, it is very anti-Babylonian. In Babylonian myths there was not any first couple, and mankind was created to work for the gods, in a collective.

Second, apart from that kind of thing, I don't see all that many reasons to denigrate Babylonians, and I don't denigrate mythology. While I don't believe Hercules was son of Jove, I believe he existed.

Third, the Babylonian "Ark" is not seaworthy, the Biblical one is. The Babylonian "Ark" is a mega version of small boats in Babylonian lands, the Biblical one is unlike the boats of the area, whether Galilaean fisherboats or Phenician things for the Mediterranean.

and they WILL ask thousands of questions like “how do evolutionists explain …” and never listen to the answer until you remind them of that -

I think "never listen to the answer" is about Science Believers (sometimes known as Atheists) not listening to the refutations of Creationists against those answers.

that Genesis says the world is flat,

W a i t ... no, Genesis two doesn't even directly mention four corners, but indirectly actually alludes to them. The rivers of paradise "water all the surface of the earth" ... four rivers flowing outwards from a single centre to the corners of the earth would indeed be impossible today, but was possible before the Atlantic and the Sahul-Sunda strait divided the more whole pre-Flood land mass.

the Garden of Eden is in Iraq,

Actually, Frat and Hiddekel are quadrifurcations of the river of paradise, it doesn't say that these ones also are in Mesopotamia - plus Iraq and Mesopotamia only partially coincide.

Noah transported all the millions of species we have today on a Bronze Age wooden boar,

Kinds. In my calculation from there being 17 species of hedgehog, this means a bit over 2000 couples, but the calculations on the Ark load would suggest this is somewhat inadequate, there were probably more, since most kinds don't have a ratio of own weight to the weight of a year's nutrition that ruminants have.

and Adam and Eve had children that commited incest.

With one couple, the only possibility was the next generation was able to and authorised to marry siblings and nieces.

So, no, those objections, safely tucked away into a part of a paragraph far down, until I unpacked that, are not very good either.

Hans Georg Lundahl

ut supra (vel infra in bloggo).

Best evidence against Creationism

Best evidence against Creationism · Wait, I Missed Something

Quora : What is the best evidence that atheists can use against creationists?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-evidence-that-atheists-can-use-against-creationists

So far, there are three answers. I will cite only the last and ultrabrief one integrally, since this is not Assorted Retorts where I take risks on copyright issues.

Pierre Vigoureux:

Not atheists.

Not even “scientists”.

The best “evidence” against “creationists” is that they are a religious belief, not a scientific belief.

Stars Collide

Let them prove their claim instead of worrying about disproving a nothing burger. When I turn on the news and scientists announce the Theory of Creationism then we can revisit this.

William Perkins

The fact there is zero good evidence for there mythical deity when one would expect to find plenty.

Takeaways.

• 1) The positive religion of atheists is not "one negative answer to one single question" as some like to define atheism, the positive religion of atheists is Science. And a near candid admission that "scientists" is not quite relevant to pitting "scientific belief" up above "religious belief" - like some Evangelicals, they like denying that their religion is a religion.
• 2) Atheists believe the news outlets are neutral and willing to allow scientists to announce the Theory of Creationism on their TV and radio stations and newspapers - this means that they miss that Morris already wrote The Genesis Flood and Dawkins admitted that Edgar Andrews had written From Nothing to Nature well.
• 3) Not only can one expect to find plenty of evidence for the God we believe in, one does - but one cannot expect Atheists, sorry, Science Believers, to know that.

I haven't seen any make a public reference to CMI or AiG or myself or Kent Hovind or Kolbe Center ...

• 1) proving language could not have evolved any more than reason or morality;
• 2) dismissing non-carbon radiometric dating (RATE project)
• 3) reinterpreting carbon dating with a creationist calibration (myself)
• 4) showing "the geologic column" exists in text books, when it comes to land biota (myself and Kent Hovind)

But, if nothing had leaked out, why would the answers be so lacking in specifics and so eager to shut down all and any debate?

A few years ago, I think appeals to anatomic and emotional-social similarities with apes or Lucy or millions and billions of years would have been more popular.

Today it's more like "for Science' sake, don't debate those guys!!!!"

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Thomas the Apostle
21.XII.2022

Calaminae natalis beati Thomae Apostoli, qui Parthis, Medis, Persis et Hyrcanis Evangelium praedicavit; ac demum in Indiam pervenit, ibique, cum eos populos in Christiana religione instituisset, Regis jussu lanceis transfixus occubuit. Ipsius reliquiae primo ad urbem Edessam, in Mesopotamia, deinde Ortonam, apud Frentanos, translatae sunt.

No Righteous People in Noah's Time?

In Genesis 6, Douay Rheims, the word "righteous" does not occur at all, but its synonym "just" occurs exactly once.

The chapter says Noe was righteous or (DR) just, not that no one else was.

What about

the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times

then?

First, the general society is described.

Second, Hebrew has, as apparent from interlinear, "every intent of the thoughts of his heart" the word "intent" ... meaning also mind.

Can a just person have a mind bent on evil? Well, I just saw a Catholic argue randonautica is demonic, and another that google translate had gone demonic when it came to Latin to English and a certain cut up and tweak on Balenciaga.

Were these two Catholics evil? No. Was their mind bent on evil, as on seeing evil? Yes.

The situation may not have been "no one was" (socially) "just" but more like "even those who were, had little time to praise God and express love for their fellow men, due to thinking on the evils of evil men so much" ... and apart from Keaton Halley giving a theologically wrong note in saying "no one is just before God," it is more like "no one" (except Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary) "was just before God all of his life," it is not the inner evil of people involved in mortal sin that is meant, it is social evil, by which sinners oppress others, both sinners and righteous.

The fact you live near a bully means, you have to take the bully into account in all that you do, even if you aren't a bully yourself. This, rather than non-existance, was the situation of the righteous before the Flood./HGL

Were Neanderthals Giants?

Look at this:

Neanderthal brain development
Neanderthal brains were similar in size to those of modern humans but differed in shape. What we cannot tell from fossils is how Neanderthal brains might have differed in function or organization of brain layers such as the neocortex. Pinson et al. have now analyzed the effect of a single amino acid change in the transketolase-like 1 (TKTL1) protein on production of basal radial glia, the workhorses that generate much of the neocortex (see the Perspective by Malgrange and Nguyen). Modern humans differ from apes and Neanderthals by this single amino acid change. When placed in organoids or overexpressed in nonhuman brains, the human variant of TKTL1 drove more generation of neuroprogenitors than did the archaic variant. The authors suggest that the modern human has more neocortex to work with than the ancient Neanderthal did. —PJH

Human TKTL1 implies greater neurogenesis in frontal neocortex of modern humans than Neanderthals
ANNELINE PINSON ID et al.| 9 Sep 2022, Vol 377, Issue 6611, DOI: 10.1126/science.abl6422
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl6422

And Pääbo stated that Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (which is lacking in our post-Flood dates) was halfway between man and ape.

Two options.

• When angels mated with women, God punished them in their offspring by making their sons and daughters apelike.
• Deliberate abuse of some CRISPR (technic or demonic) to make some men have some apelike features.

For the second option, see:

Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors
by Russell Grigg, First published: 20 August 2007, Re-featured on homepage: 4 April 2012
https://creation.com/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin wanted to rebuild the Red Army, in the mid-1920s, with Planet-of-the-Apes-style troops by crossing humans with apes. This was according to a report in The Scotsman newspaper on 20 December 2005.

Well, what Stalin failed by crossbreeding, some pre-Flood man or madman (dare one single out Tubal-Cain?) or falling angel (according to the view that some angels fell after Satan did, by lusting after the women whose guardian angels they were), succeeded by some kind of CRISPR. The idea would have been "with such soldiers to our disposal, no one will dare make war with us" ... and the result would have been everyone made war, and despite being dumbed down some Neanderthal tribes broke loose of the control.

Jonathan Sarfati* contests pre-Flood man having this kind of technical proficiency with the reference Genesis 6:11 And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. The KJV has instead: The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Well, the thing is, Sarfati reasons like "since the earth was filled with violence, no one had the peace to invent things, to develop technologies" ... and my answer is, what if the violence was actually a result of such inventions already being made? Plus obviously, scientists on arms projects tend to get peace and comfort while developing means of violence. They too would be involved in an earth filled with violence, not because they were disturbed by violence, but because they were given physical peace and comfort in order to make their contribution to the violence.

Here are a few verses from Genesis 6 and from Baruch 3:

Genesis 6: [1] And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, [2] The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. [3] And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. [4] Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. [5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, ... [11] And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. [12] And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,)

Baruch 3: [26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

It is also possible that this is not so much about Neanderthals as about even more debased races, and that Neanderthals were halfway out of this. Despite an inhibited neo-cortex. The reference to not finding knowledge does not rule out technical proficiency, since the previous verse specifies "expert in war" - everything about arms and survival skills, the Neanderthals would have been great and knowledgeable, it is the moral knowledge and perhaps the knowledge of Genesis 3 events and Genesis 4 events, right just a few centuries earlier, that they didn't find. You do find plenty of people today who are technologically proficient, but who believe Columbus discovered the earth wasn't flat or things like that. Even with a normal neo-cortex.

Actually, Sarfati gave another argument that I need to answer:

Another well-known creationist leader claimed Noah and his contemporaries could have had tools, machines and techniques not inferior to those of today.

This is obviously fallacious: if they had techniques just as good as ours, then why didn’t they use a lightweight and strong titanium alloy, attach an outboard motor, and for good measure, videotape the events for posterity?

Noah and his family could have been blocked out of certain techniques, for "refusing to take the mark" in the pre-Flood sense, and therefore being impeded from normal buying and selling.

And Noah could also have seen how the wickedness was increasing due to increased technologies and voluntarily have chosen to do without certain of them. Plus he knew many of them would be unworkable in post-Flood conditions. How do eight men start an electricity plant to make video tapes work? Hence the need to have a daughter in law with Neanderthal heritage who could share easily available techniques for survival. Magdalenian was how Noah's family adapted Mousterian. And Mousterian in the pre-Flood world coexisted with, not necessarily computers, but more things like CRISPR and atom bombs. Things which we have fortunately not dug up. My take on where to look for Henoch in the land of Nod? Like, the Himalayas are certainly East of Eden, and God could have used that much sediment to bury a city that had gone that bad.

Or a high tech war ended up eating up all the technology. Was it Einstein who said "I don't know how the third world war will be fought, but the fourth will be fought with clubs and sticks"?

Sarfati makes another argument:

Historically and logically, the rise of modern science depended strongly on certain assumptions, and these were derived from a biblical Christian worldview, including honesty, rationality, and a Lawgiving Creator and upholder of the universe.

Right ... Tubal-Cain invented metallurgy, as we know from the Bible, and he was just so pious, so just, no evils abounded in his family ... wait, did you mention Genesis 4:23? It seems Lamech made the remark after Tubal Cain had become an inventor.

And even during the wars, there was peace within the countries; e.g. even though the UK and US were on war footing, these nations maintained order. The Flood was different: a society full of violence.

I would state that "maintaining order" is perfectly compatible with "iniquity" and actually even with "violence" on a mental or institutional level - Strong's 2555 (chamas) is used of false witnesses in Exodus 23, and of cruelty of mocking comforts in Job 19:7. It's no longer a question of the Sabaeans, but of Baldad. KGB can "maintain order" for scientists to work in, but it's still violence if they are into developing Novichok. And violence if they are left alone from mobs who don't appreciate them developing Novichok.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Wednesday after St. Lucy
14.XII.2022

* Quote and link:

Furthermore, such claims overlook a vital factor: intelligence is not enough for scientific advance. ... But the pre-Flood world was far from a biblically-based civilization; rather, it rejected God and was full of violence (Genesis 6:11, Hebrew חָמָס hamas). These are hardly the conditions required for good scientific research, and this is the main thing overlooked by those who overstate Noah’s technology level.

https://creation.com/computers-on-the-ark

How Long Was Prehistory? Five Days

History begins on day 6, when Adam and at the end also Eve are present as human observers.

How do we best approach pre-history?

Reconstruction? Or prophecy?

Reconstruction appeals to presuppositions about the past, and in the case of pre-history, about a past observed by no man.

Prophecy appeals to God being present and knowing what He was doing. So, in an extended sense, that prophecy Moses had on Sinai about the six days' work is also history.

Here's Kennedy Hall:

As an aside, the idea that there is a “pre-history” is, to me, a bit nonsensical. As if there were a history before there were a history.

This is the one real quibble I had with an otherwise good article. Yes, there are five days of history recorded by God and angels and revealed later to man, before there is a history where man is present as an observer. Apart from this quibble, take a read:

Crisis Magazine : Confessions of a Creationist
Kennedy Hall, December 2, 2022
https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/confessions-of-a-creationist

Enjoy!/HGL

Minoan Culture is Older than the Mycenaean Copy

When?

c. 3500 – c. 1100 BC

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

This really boils down to 1935 to 1100 BC, since 1935, Genesis 14, by the reed mats from the evacuation of En-Geddi (mentioned as Asason Tamar in Genesis 14, thank you, Osgood) is carbon dated to 3500 BC (thanks to the archaeologists). 835 years is less than 2400 years, but still respectable.

Mycenaean Greece:

c. 1750 – c. 1050 BC

The real year close to 1700 BC is carbon dated to 2600 BC, or even 2800 BC by the uncalibrated date, since Joseph's pharao was Djoser. So, carbon dated 1750 BC = later, closer to the end of the Israelite's staying in Egypt. In fact, Moses was already born, if Sesostris III was the childkilling pharao. 1550 BC to 1050 BC is 500 years.

The chronology of Cycladic civilization is divided into three major sequences: Early, Middle and Late Cycladic. The early period, beginning c. 3000 BC, segued into the archaeologically murkier Middle Cycladic c. 2500 BC. By the end of the Late Cycladic sequence (c. 2000 BC), there was essential convergence between the Cycladic and Minoan civilizations.

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

There are actually four sites or cultures with their own probable dates:

The Grotta-Pelos culture ... is the period that marks the beginning of the so-called Cycladic culture and spans the Neolithic period in the late 4th millennium BC (ca. 3300 BC), continuing in the Bronze Age to about 2700 BC.

1868 BC to 1700 BC. Abraham 147 years old to Joseph in Egypt.

The Keros-Syros culture is named after two islands in the Cyclades: Keros and Syros. This culture flourished during the Early Cycladic II period (ca 2700-2300 BC) of the Cycladic civilization.

1700 BC to 1645 BC.

The Kastri culture (Greek: Καστρί) refers to a "cultural" dating system used for the Cycladic culture that flourished during the early Bronze Age in Greece.[1] It spans the period ca. 2500–2200 BC

1668 BC to 1633 BC.

The Phylakopi I culture ... spans the period ca. 2300-2000 BC

1645 BC to 1610 BC.

Back to Crete.

Although stone-tool evidence suggests that hominins may have reached Crete as early as 130,000 years ago, evidence for the first anatomically-modern human presence dates to 10,000–12,000 YBP.

8000 - 10,000 BC or 10,000 to 8000 BC = around Babel (2607 BC dated as 9600 BC, 2556 BC as 8600 BC).

The oldest evidence of modern human habitation on Crete is pre-ceramic Neolithic farming-community remains which date to about 7000 BC.

C. 2400 BC.

A comparative study of DNA haplogroups of modern Cretan men showed that a male founder group, from Anatolia or the Levant, is shared with the Greeks.

Does this mean, the Kaphthorim had alredy left Crete in 2400 BC, replaced by Javan's sons?

Eutresis culture of c. 3200 – c. 2650 BC (also called Early Helladic I)

1834 BC to 1685 BC.

Korakou culture or Early Helladic II (in some schemes Early Helladic IIA) was an early phase of Bronze Age Greece, in the Early Helladic period, lasting from around 2650 to c.2200 BC.

1685 BC to 1633 BC.

Tiryns culture (2,200–2,000 BC) or Early Helladic III.

1633 BC to c. 1610 BC.

We actually have a table of carbon dates, I'll use New Tables to recalibrate it, omitting the final part, the table VIII to IX:

1621 - 1599 BC (New Tables)

2100–1900 BC, MMIA (conventional dating)

1599 - 1577 BC

1900–1800 BC, MMIB, Protopalatial (Old Palace Period)

1577 - 1555 BC

1800–1750 BC, MMIIA

1555 - 1532 BC

1750–1700 BC, MMIIB, Neopalatial (New Palace Period)

1532 - 1510 BC

1700–1650 BC, MMIIIA

1510 - 1487 BC

1650–1600 BC, MMIIIB

1487 - 1424 BC

1600–1500 BC, LMIA

1424 - 1386 BC

1500–1450 BC, LMIB, Postpalatial (at Knossos; Final Palace Period)

1386 - 1348 BC

1450–1400 BC, LMII

1348 - 1313 BC

1400–1350 BC, LMIIIA

1313 - 1100 BC

1350–1100 BC, LMIIIB

My calibration is based on Biblical history. The conventional archaeological one is based, at best, on dendrochronology. It is not based on history from the Helladic cultures, since Linear B Mycenaean texts are tax receipts and Linear A Minoan texts are undeciphered./HGL

Michael Lofton's Middle Inerrancy

So Are There Errors in the Bible or Not?
MICHAEL LOFTON • 9/29/2022
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/so-are-there-errors-in-the-bible-or-not

I will presume that Seraphim is the more or less spokesperson for Michael Lofton. Michael being an Archangel and "Seraphim" (in the Hebrew) also being a class of Angels.

He very correctly states that § 11 of Dei Verbum, while it has lent itself to the interpretation "partial inerrancy" certainly does not teach that.

What does "partial inerrancy" mean? It means an inerrancy limited to truths necessary for our salvation. Bible being inerrant on the Trinity consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, on Christ rising for the dead and the things related to the "six things everyone has to know and believe in order to be saved" but not being inerrant on the rest.

The cue to this misinterpretation is:

it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation

The correct meaning is, all of the Bible are without error, since all of it was put into sacred writings on some level for the sake of salvation. The number of generations between Noah and Abraham (second part of Genesis 11) may not be the most needed truth for the conversion of Cornelius, but it may for instance play some role in these endtimes by telling us that the story of the Flood is reliable history, there were so many overlaps in them that Abraham could hear the story without any significant distortion, even on the natural level.

However, Seraphim wants to exclude also "total inerrancy" (even if limited to original autograph of the hagiographer), preferring Ratzinger's "middle inerrancy" ...

Scripture is and remains inerrant and beyond doubt in everything that it properly intends to affirm, but this is not necessarily so in that which accompanies the affirmation and is not part of it. . . . The inerrancy of Scripture has to be limited to its vere enunciate.

As a Latinist, I correct "vere enunciate" to "vere enunciata" ... the things that are really enounced, affirmed, said, claimed etc. by the hagiographer.

There is in fact a Medieval writing that is called "Postilla in libros Geneseos" variously attributed or denied being of St. Thomas Aquinas* where the genealogy of the Vulgate is followed and the fact Luke (in all manuscripts the author - presumably St. Thomas - knew) has the Second Cainan is put down to St. Luke following the LXX. So, if you spell it out, the LXX has a scribal error, on this view, the thing St. Luke wanted to do was attach a genealogy Jesus back to Adam at "being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph,"** and not understanding Hebrew used a Greek translation of the OT, and therefore even the autograph of St. Luke transmits a scribal error from the LXX.

In this case, the reason St. Thomas was going against the Gospel of St. Luke is, he stuck to another Bible text as ... inerrant. I am thankful for the knowledge I owe to CMI that there are manuscripts of St. Luke without this person, so, if the standard LXX has an error, it is not necessary to presume the autograph of St. Luke contained it.

Ratzinger gives the example of Abiathar in Mark 2:26:

One can point out small matters, like the fact that Mark speaks of the High Priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26) instead of his father, Achimelech.

One can say Our Lord meant "under Achimelech the then high priest and Abiathar the future high priest" - or Our Lord had a slip of the mind. Or St. Peter had one when telling this to St. Mark. I would arguably prefer the first option. Here is Haydock's:

Ver. 26. Under Abiathar. The priest from whom David had these loaves, is called Achimelech, 1 K. xxi. The most probable answer to this difficulty is, that the priest had both these names of Achimelech and of Abiathar, as also his father had before him. For he that (1 K. xxii.) is called Abiathar, the son of Achimelech, is called 2 K. viii. 17, Achimelech, the son of Abiathar. See also 1 Par. xviii. 16. Wi. — Others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelech, was present, and sanctioned the deed of his father, thus making it his own. Dion. Carth.

Wi = Bishop Witham
Dion. Carth. = I can't find one Dionysius of Carthage. So, I don't know.

It is worth noting that biblical scholars have offered explanations to resolve this apparent error. Nevertheless, the above example should suffice to illustrate the position.

I am thankful Michael Lofton notes this about biblical scholars offering explanations. So, as you can see, do I.

So, the position is illustrated with smaller matters. Unfortunately, Seraphim goes beyond this, after Elijah (the interlocutor) asking if he admits Genesis is historical, then if he means everything in it is parabolical:

Seraphim: Not exactly. I’m not saying we should read everything in Genesis as a parable, and I’m also not denying that it could be communicating real history. I’m simply saying that it is possible for the sacred author to propose something as true without intending to propose that something happened historically. Perhaps the sacred author did propose some of the events in the book of Genesis as historically true, and perhaps he didn’t. We don’t have to dismiss the book of Genesis as merely a myth filled with errors, nor do we have to assume some crass form of scriptural fundamentalism. Just because Joshua 10:13 says the sun stood still, that doesn’t mean the Bible must be interpreted as meaning the sun revolves around the earth.

In fact - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine did that. Galileo's book was judged. Later on, by other judges, he was judged himself.

In fact, verse 12 is even more clear. The words "sun, stand thou still" are not part of the prayer, since Joshua wasn't praying to the sun. They are therefore something coming after the prayer. Here is for another Jesus (or Joshua) also praying before a miracle:

[41] They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus lifting up his eyes said: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. [42] And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. [43] When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth.

Could the words "Lazarus, come forth" contain any error? Would it be possible that Jesus had been misled about the identity of the corpse and raised someone else, when thinking He was raising Lazarus? No, of course.

Well, that should give a hint about Joshua (or Jesus Nave) 10:12, as it says:

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

The speaking to the Lord and the saying before the children of Israel are two distinct things. Even for this Joshua, the Lord did not allow the words coming after his public prayer to contain an error.

And what he definitely did not say is "earth, quit that rotation for some while" which would have been more correct if the daily motion is normally that of the earth around itself, rather than of the Sun around Earth.

So, what Michael Lofton wants to call "crass fundamentalism" is previsely the correct option for Christians, at least in big things.

And obviously, it is vapid guesswork, unsupported by the Church Fathers to say significant parts of Genesis (outside the 7 cows that actually are a parable and actually do get interpreted) are parable.

In Trent, Session IV, we are not just told to stay with the inerrancy of the Bible, but more specifically, when interpreting it, with whatever the Church hath held and holds*** and the consensus of the Church Fathers.

No Church Father said "genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 as well as their mirroring in Luke 3 are parables without factual relation to time." None. You can find words "not in time" applied to "the beginning" (Genesis 1:1) and - rarely - to the six days. Never ever to these genealogies. The precise same St. Augustine who nearly "denies" creation took place over as much time as six days also clearly upholds the historicity of these chapters.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Nahum
1.XII.2022

Sancti Nahum Prophetae, in Begabar quiescentis.

* If it was, it was arguably from his youth in the Naples region, and he got more classic and less Romance in his Latin when he came to Paris.
** Luke 3:23 reads in entirety And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,
*** Not just what the Church holds, well remarked just in case one were to imagine the Church changing its mind - such changes of mind do not bind!