Feel free to reprint and to edit collections of my essays! (link to conditions)
"La vérité et l'érudition, en effet, ne sauraient être hérétiques, au point de redouter d'utiliser ce que des érudits, même hérétiques, ont écrit et exposé avec justesse". (Dom Guarin)
Pages
- Accueil
- Blogs by same author
- Un blog a été donné à vos étudiants.
- Where You Looking For Something Else?
- Apologetics Section
- Can we get this straight? I never said I was atheist up to becoming Catholic
- Weakness of CMI : Church History
- A Catholic who will go unnamed
- Reading this on iPad?
- Dixit Aquinas
- Are All Responses to CMI Here?
- What is a Miracle? What Does it Take?
- Link to Haydock Comment
- My Carreer Shouldn't Depend on Merriam Webster Spelling
samedi 25 janvier 2025
Someone Has Decided My Apologetics Blogs Cannot Be Shared on FB Walls, own, a friend's or a group's.
Now, the censorship takes different forms.
One is, the URL for this blog infringes on Community Standards.
The next time, it was seen as "looks like spam" ...
Incidentally, and I hope this is really incidental, there are some positions in CMI and in AiG that I don't share, and I say so.
"Neanderthals can't be Nephelim because the Flood wiped all away" ...
God wiped away men who were on the face, i e above surface of the earth. A Neanderthal that's buried was already below earth's surface, so no longer on the face of the earth, when the Flood came. Therefore God didn't wipe those people out. He did wipe the people out who were still walking. Neanderthals, Denisovans, reg'lar post-Flood guys.
I'd probably agree Neanderthals per se aren't Nephelim, because Denisovan / Heidelbergian / Antecessor seems a better candidate. Homo erectus may be a kind of very ugly and stupid Nephelim, or a kind of ugly and stupid person bred to serve the Nephelim in brutality. I base the ugly part on cannibalism of Trinil. And also on the 1922 reconstruction (which however was based on a skull cap, so, the facial features were fantasy). I base the stupid part on the estimate that the average brain size of a Homo erectus was that of a ten year old child. Or an ear which is basically a human ear, but one with a slight tendency to an ape ear's greater thickness, so that a Homo erectus may have heard consonants like K and CH, but not the shriller consonants P and T. A dangerous combination with a more than normally human strength. And if they didn't have the difformity as a punishment to their angelic fathers, as in them being Nephelim, they may certainly have had it as a kind of deliberate breeding of supersoldiers by the Nephelim.
Now, CMI and AiG seem to put great stock on this idea that we have NO human bones from before the Flood, which I see as a misreading of Genesis 6:7, and this means, as long as they do this, they cannot afford to accept my recalibration of carbon dating. It says squarely that if a skeleton is dated to 40 000 BP or earlier, it is pre-Flood. As all Neanderthal skeleta and also Denny (Denisovan) are carbon dated to older* than 40 000 BP, this makes them pre-Flood. Hence, they need to put more doubts on carbon dating than really needed.
Connected to this is the idea, there was no spread of mankind before Babel. "They" in Genesis 11:2 = (according to them) "all the earth" in Genesis 11:1. No spread before Babel allowed, which means that a post-Babel Palaeolithic can be explained by technology loss when some of the groups splitting off from Babel hadn't been specialising in farming.
My view of Babel is, it is Göbekli Tepe and during the period or just after it, farming becomes commonplace. But this obviously means there is a geographic spread of mankind before Babel, which they wrongly think contradicts Genesis 11:1,2. Incidentally, they are Protestants, and Protestants generally misread Matthew 6:7, and incidentally, Luke 11:1,2 is a parallel passage.
Can I really hope they have not been meddling with links to this blog, by reporting it as spam or as against community standards? I'm not sure, but alas, there are other candidates. One could theoretically state that a Secularist, heavily allergic to everything Creation science did it, and I cannot disprove that. On the other hand, if it were the case, and if CMI / AiG were not into a kind of gate keeping (like Judaism about Isaias 53), well, why haven't they made any move to accept my offers of publication and why haven't they defended my freedom of speech at least? Including, in freedom of information, the freedom of others to find me on FB? Perhaps I haven't clearly enough asked for it, but now I do. I hope this is clear.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Conversion of St. Paul
25.I.2025
* The observation only applies to those that are carbon dated, which is not all of them.
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire