Augustine and Origen each give us "two birds with one stone"

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gary Bates' Egyptian Matches Bungle the Carbon Rise · Creation vs. Evolution: Egyptian Chronology Calibrated · Augustine and Origen each give us "two birds with one stone" · Carbon 14 and Egyptian Chronology, a Reply to Gary Bates

A) They show that the Church Fathers (even those not believing in six literal days) were Young Earth Creationists.
B) They confirm that the Egyptians conflated their chronologies.

Origen, Contra Celsum, Book I
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Chapter 19

After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phæthon, were more recent than any others. And if he should put forward the dialogues of Plato (as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him that it is allowable for us also to believe that there resided in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who ascended above all created things, and united himself to the Creator of the universe, and who made known divine things with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other wise men (who lived) among the Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.

Chapter 20

And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom are to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and in arguments which prove that such a worship of God is in conformity with reason, and of a secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians, then, when they boastfully give their own account of the divinity of animals, are to be considered wise; but if any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law and the lawgiver, refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the only God, he is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal animals, but even to that of irrational also!— a view which goes far beyond the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the soul falls down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of brute beasts, both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!

Augustine, City of God, Book XII
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm

Chapter 10.— Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past.
Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing our race, Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and as a race, they are immortal. And when they are asked, how, if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their history, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? They reply, that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and that thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though those things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then; but that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander, which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter of chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we believe these documents which, though full of fabulous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass!

Credits are due to Jonathan Sarfati for giving a short quote from each passage, and if he lacked the reference for St. Augustine, it was supplied by Lita Sanders earlier on.

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

Cain Married His Sister - Why Is it Wrong Now?

St. Augustine and CMI are united on two things.

• Cain married his sister;
• marrying one's sister would be wrong now.

They are also disunited on why it was right then and wrong now, a common point on why it was right being sheer necessity:

• CMI says, it's the genes : as mutations accumulate, sharing a mutation becomes more dangerous.
• St. Augustine says, maximising the number of friendships requires to have a different father and father in law, if possible.

Here are the core explanations, which are different:

CMI: Who was Cain’s wife?
The Creation Answers Book (8th ed. 2019), Chapter 8
https://creation.com/who-was-cains-wifeMI

This explains why, when two people marry today, their children rarely show mutational defects. The point is that even though each parent carries hundreds of mistakes, and passes many on,12 the mistakes carried by each parent are not usually the same sets of mistakes. Because a husband and wife usually have parents with quite different genetic backgrounds, they will have significantly different sets of mistakes. So any defective gene inherited from one parent will normally be ‘covered up’ or ‘compensated for’ by the normal gene, carrying the normal instructions, passed on from the other parent.

St. Augustine : City of God, book 15, chapter 16:
Of Marriage Between Blood-Relations, in Regard to Which the Present Law Could Not Bind the Men of the Earliest Ages.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

... For it is very reasonable and just that men, among whom concord is honorable and useful, should be bound together by various relationships; and one man should not himself sustain many relationships, but that the various relationships should be distributed among several, and should thus serve to bind together the greatest number in the same social interests. "Father" and "father-in-law" are the names of two relationships. When, therefore, a man has one person for his father, another for his father-in-law, friendship extends itself to a larger number. But Adam in his single person was obliged to hold both relations to his sons and daughters, for brothers and sisters were united in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother and mother-in-law to her children of both sexes; while, had there been two women, one the mother, the other the mother-in-law, the family affection would have had a wider field. Then the sister herself by becoming a wife sustained in her single person two relationships, which, had they been distributed among individuals, one being sister, and another being wife, the family tie would have embraced a greater number of persons. But there was then no material for effecting this, since there were no human beings but the brothers and sisters born of those two first parents. Therefore, when an abundant population made it possible, men ought to choose for wives women who were not already their sisters; for not only would there then be no necessity for marrying sisters, but, were it done, it would be most abominable. For if the grandchildren of the first pair, being now able to choose their cousins for wives, married their sisters, then it would no longer be only two but three relationships that were held by one man, while each of these relationships ought to have been held by a separate individual, so as to bind together by family affection a larger number. For one man would in that case be both father, and father-in-law, and uncle to his own children (brother and sister now man and wife); and his wife would be mother, aunt, and mother-in-law to them; and they themselves would be not only brother and sister, and man and wife, but cousins also, being the children of brother and sister.

Two things should be retained from this discussion:

• St. Augustine (and in general all the Church Fathers) agreed because this is what the Bible text says.
• Catholics have a notion of natural law or equity, while Protestant specialists have a notion of God knowing things that those obeying Him do not know.

While that is also a fact, this was in fact obeyed by most pagans too, not to marry sisters, so, this means, the Church Father has a point in favour of Natural Law./HGL

Trent Horn Wrong

Important notice : my article refers to the two cited paragraphs on Trent Horn's podcast, the rest is rather sensible. Writing this after signing the article, and it's too important for a PPS. See also: New blog on the kid : Could Da Vinci Code be read by Mature Catholics? And what about Potter? https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2020/01/could-da-vinci-code-be-read-by-mature.html

Citing two paragraphs:

I may do a podcast in the future on people at the Kolbe Center, who say that Catholics are obligated to believe in young earth creationism, which is not true. The Church does not oblige that. I would say the best evidence from science and the writings of the Church Fathers and what the Church teaches is that Catholics should not believe in young earth creationism and that the earth is 6,000 years old.

We should believe, as Pope Saint John Paul II said in his encyclical On Faith and Reason, that faith and reason are complementary. They don’t contradict each other. So if science tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old, our faith does not contradict that scientific finding. We don’t have to entertain a conflict. Otherwise, if we do, Saint Augustine in his commentary on Genesis, he criticized Christians of his day who were arguing for a literal creation theory, saying that they become a mockery to non-Christians, claiming to be experts in astronomy and the sciences when they actually are not experts in these things.

Transscript from a podcast by Trent Horn, available here:

Fr. Ripperger, Harry Potter, and Healthy Skepticism
TRENT HORN • 9/5/2019
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/fr-ripperger-harry-potter-and-healthy-skepticism

Analysed:

I may do a podcast in the future on people at the Kolbe Center, who say that Catholics are obligated to believe in young earth creationism, which is not true.

Technical on what texts are authoritative and what they really say.

Trent Horn accepting Vatican II as a real Council and Dei Verbum as one of the highest ranking if not the most highest ranking document of it might consider its § 3 as infallible. And it teaches young earth creationism.

It trumps Humani Generis, which was only an encyclical and anyway did not decide for or against considering Adam as having a biological but not moral ancestry that was not fully human.

It trumps the speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 22 1951, in which he considered the Earth as 5 billion years old.

It is much more clear than making some kind of advocacy against such obligation from other words in Dei Verbum like "revealed for our salvation" (is YEC salvation relevant?) or "genre" (if it features, have not read all of the document).

But for me as not accepting it and as considering Humani Generis ambiguity as being a sin against the faith comparable to Pope Honorius not allowing polemics against Monotheletism, my latest authorities as to Church law are things like the decisions of 1905 and 1909. Do not know of much between that and Pius XII's roughshod handling of it.

The Church does not oblige that.

The 1909 decision gives an open door to day-age theory, if it stays at that. While the consulter Fulcran Vigouroux is on record as previously having envisaged extending the timeline for Genesis 5 and 11 too, for one thing he had even back then decided that with present (1880's or 90's) evidence and taking a LXX timeline, that was not necessary, and for another, he did not repeat this potential licence in his capacity of consulter in 1909. So, the 1909 decision gives an open door to an old earth one might call "pure day age" - tampering with timeline of Genesis 1, but not of Genesis 5 or 11.

This one may agree that the Church does not forbid, unless Pope Michael has issued a decree since that removes this liberty. His Holiness is himself certainly not a proponent of day age.

However, an old earth position really thought through (and not just accepted by ignorance and laziness and half learning) these days, given that C14 dating is more, not less, reliable than geological strata or Ka-Ar dating, would imply extending the timeline radically for Genesis 5 or 11 or both. This extension is NOT provided for in the 1909 decision.

The "day age +" theory of old earth has as its most harsh problem that it throws a doubt on the historic accuracy of Genesis 3. In order to honour Our Lady, we need not only to identify Her with the woman of Genesis 3:15, we also need the text of God's words to the serpent to have been accurately transmitted from Adam to Moses. Since Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 deal with later events, if we cannot trust them, how can we trust Genesis 3 not to have been garbled prior to Moses?

And if you say "Moses was inspired when writing down Genesis 3, historic truth was miraculously restored or had been miraculously preserved among conditions very adverse to preserving history" - why not the same with Genesis 5 and 11? Though accepting it would certainly remove some of your motives for calling the conditions unideal for transmitting stories of Genesis 2 to 11 accurately.

On the other hand you can say "Genesis 5 and 11 are not salvation relevant, Genesis 3 is, therefore Genesis 3 was miraculously excepted from the process affecting Genesis 5 and 11" - why would we believe that? Why would God make the claims not directly pertaining to our salvation, but pertaining to our knowledge of those that pertain to salvation a non-inerrant claim, if He intends His word to have any inerrancy? And if Genesis 5 and 11 are not literally true, how would they help us to know the truth of salvation relevant Genesis 3?

For make no mistake, if Genesis 5 and 11 are historical fact, then this very much helps the credibility of Genesis 3 as historical fact too. I'll again cite Fr. George Leo Haydock on his last comment on Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

Sure, he says, theoretically there would have been time enough to just potentially garble some minor detail of Genesis 3, but thanks to God's inspiration we know this is not so. But, before this, he states clearly, that we have a good purely natural expectation of Genesis 3 having been correctly preserved. The "minimal overlap" steps of transmission (which are not separated but completed by the other generations) are on purely natural grounds a fairly good security against involuntary and unintentional garbling of what Genesis 3 says. I might concur with Fulcran on LXX for Genesis 5 and 11 (on somewhat other grounds), this extends the minimal overlap steps somewhat but not very much. Connected to this is the next:

Its next harshest disaster in accepting "day age +" is, if we place Adam even near when he is on traditional time, but accept modern "scientific" dates for certain Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals and for certain people in Americas, you get a clear difficulty for all men descending from Adam as even only one of the ancestors in his time.

And if you place Adam and Eve at c. 30 000 or 40 000 BP, you may have a better case for pre-Columbian Americans and pre-Tasman Australians descending from them, but you have radically worsened the case for Genesis 3 being history.

Not to mention you would be very anti-Semitic about Jewish genealogies, since Matthew 1 gives 42 ancestors of 46 (or 41 of 45?), 91%, but this would imply sth like less than 20 % of the ancestors mentioned. Three in a row, and if my memory serves me, one later on, omitted for reason of condemnatio memoriae.

I would say the best evidence from science and the writings of the Church Fathers

It is easy to say the phrase "the best evidence from science and the writings of the Church Fathers" but precisely therefore, it doesn't guarantee you actually have accessed the founts of knowledge you are talking about.

and what the Church teaches

If you mean the Vatican II Sect in its present liturgy, you have a case. That precise case is also one, if I am right, for "John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis" not having been or being Popes, since the "unknown ages" version of Christmas Martyrology is at great odds with what I am saying and not just on behalf of very personal feelings, but for good objective reasons.

is that Catholics should not believe in young earth creationism and that the earth is 6,000 years old.

We have an ambiguity. Does he mean "should not" as I would say we should not believe "pure day age" even if 1909 decision may seem it is allowable? Or does he mean "must not" as I would say we must not believe "day age +"?

We should believe, as Pope Saint John Paul II said in his encyclical On Faith and Reason, that faith and reason are complementary.

Faith has a propositional content - "I believe in God Father Almighty" - but reason has not. Reason is the capacity that accepts or rejects the propositional content of the faith.

By claiming complementarity, Wojtyla was suggesting that "reason" too has propositional content. That "reason" refers to some kind of doctrine.

They don’t contradict each other.

Someone's reason will accept the Faith, someone else's reason will contradict the Faith. Unlike Faith, there is no such doctrine as "Reason".

And in the following he, or Trent Horn resuming him, or Trent Horn thinking on after him is in fact not speaking of reason, but of an activity which depends on reason in order to be healthy, namely science.

So if science tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old, our faith does not contradict that scientific finding.

I could point out that the "if [then]" clause has an empty apodosis. It could be as formally true as a sentence beginning "if the moon is a blue cheese" ... but it would be empty.

Yes, faith does contradict anyone telling us that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, including a scientist, and no, it is not a scientific finding or at least not a legitimate one.

We don’t have to entertain a conflict. Otherwise, if we do, Saint Augustine in his commentary on Genesis, he criticized Christians of his day who were arguing for a literal creation theory,

Trent Horn seems to have read only one commentary by St. Augustine on Genesis, namely THE most quotemined quote of St. Augustine these days.

This one.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics;

In fact, he has written three : De Genesi contra Manichaeos libri duo; De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber; De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim.

This is not apparent from the English wikipedian article on St. Augustine's works, as it has been garbled - The Chronicles of Narnia (Librum annalium Narnia) would seem to have another author, it would also not be "liber" / "librum" but "libri VII" but C. S. Lewis lived more than 1500 years later than St. Augustine - but the Polish page has been well preserved (and also gives the Latin titles).

It so happens, I have read City of God, and it so happens I have of De Genesis ad litteral libri XII read the first five books (or skipped some from 2:nd to 4th and then read 5) and into book 6. I happen to know from my reading in De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII (which for some reason is not on Newadvent Patristics page!) that the liberties St. Augustine took with six days were the very opposite ones to the ones taken by Fulcran Vigoroux. St. Augustine thinks that creation in one single moment (not even divisible into microseconds as to itself) is sensible to assume, knowing God is all powerful and also bc of Genesis 2:4 and a mistranslated Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18:1 (simul would have been near correct in St. Jerome's native everyday Latin, like "insimul" = "insieme" = "ensemble" - meaning "together" but this was different from the Latin of St. Augustine, who also replaced "iunctim" with something, but with something else - arguably "iuncti, iunctae, iuncta" like Spanish "juntos, juntas"). And to return to City of God, he both upholds literal truth of old ages attained (Adam dying at 930 etc.) and of short overall timeline, compared to such offered by some Pagans.

So, St. Augustine did not materially agree with you. He was in fact a Young Earth Creationist. However, he did also not formally agree with you.

Let's recall what Christians should not contradict, on his words, repeated:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something ... and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience."

From expertise? Or from reason and experience?

I hold the theorem of Pythagoras to be certain from reason and experience, and dito with π being an irrational (but not a number). But it is obvious that "expertise" will hold lots more than the usual man as "certain from reason and experience".

saying that they become a mockery to non-Christians, claiming to be experts in astronomy and the sciences when they actually are not experts in these things.

I am sorry, but the translation is tendentious. Latin does not clearly distinguish nouns from adjectives. The noun "expert" is not one that can be attested for Latin of pre-modern times. The word "expertus" is an adjective and means "experienced".

In case you consider St. Augustine did want us to cave in to expertise on matters where our reason and experience are insufficient to by themselves conclude, rather than to the Bible, you are not just over relying on this mistranslation, but you are also contradicting the title of a certain work of his:

Contra academicos.

When searching, the ctrl+F gave me for "contra" 38 hits. St. Augustine was definitely a polemic. The title is also missing in the Newadvent site for Church Father writings, and it suggests that St. Augustine on the contrary thought it could be very well and dandy on occasions to contradict expertise.

By his time, the four schools of philosophy were dwindling to two, namely Plato an Aristotle. Plato is the one relevant for Academici in the classical sense, but both were together among the closest equivalents that the time of St. Augustine had to experts in the modern sense.

I give an alternative translation:

"saying that they become a mockery to non-Christians, claiming to be geeks in astronomy and the sciences when they actually are not very geeky in these things."

This covers both "experts" and "amateurs". And unlike the nouns "experts" it is actually correct. A geek has the experience of study in a subject he is geek in.

I am not an academic expert in carbon 14 dating, but I certainly am a geek in it and am not making myself a mockery by the fact of claiming to be so - except to those who refuse to look up my actual solutions, which is not a case of being a mockery by my behaviour, but of being so by someone else's unfounded rumour and prejudice.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Maur des Fossées
St. Agnes of Rome
21.I.2020

Link to Polish list of St. Augustine's works:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzie%C5%82a_Augustyna_z_Hippony

PS, a fraudulent rumour about inter alia St. Augustine suggests that you don't have a Young Earth Creationist unity among Fathers - you do, and this should suggest a certain council to a man named Trent Horn. Recall "unanimem sensum patrum" or sth?/HGL

PPS, on reading the rest of the podcast's transscript - see the important notice above/HGL

Answering Freeman

His essay is long, I am nibbling. It's title says, here:

The Contradictions of Scripture
June 29, 2016 · Fr. Stephen Freeman
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2016/06/29/the-contradictions-of-scripture/

But so far, I haven't seen it deal with a single real or supposed either contradiction or even paradox.

// Alexander Campbell, one of the founders of the Protestant Restoration Movement, is said to have carried a Bible and the writings of John Locke. The “common sense” of Scottish rationalism has deeply affected the popular treatment of the Scriptures in the contemporary world. //

I already suspected that John Locke was "Father of the Fundies", here it is historically confirmed. Except, if Alexander Cambell was their father, arguably Locke was their grandpa.

Hence the type of philosophical and scientific ideal which discards angelic movers. Even before someone suggests them.

// There seems to be a general sense that the New Testament, however it arrived at its conclusions, is now the rational guide for reading the Old Testament. The Apostolic Church wrote by a miracle and we read with our reason. There is a rational paradigm that has risen in this context. It is rooted in the notion of the “authority” of Scripture (and its infallibility). How do I know that Christ is the truth? Because it’s in the Bible. How do I know that the Bible is true? Well, it says so in this verse here. That circular reasoning is actually as nonsensical as it sounds. //

In the Fundie circles I look out at or even debate with, it is also as strawmanly as one can suppose.

I saw a non-believer bring this up as a strawman against Christians, and I challenged him. He did not back it up. I was supported by a probably Evangelical Christian (unless he was Orthodox and discreet) and here is the dialogue:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Debate on Christianity and Evidence
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/02/debate-on-christianity-and-evidence.html

// This also creates an anxiety of reliability. //

Shrinkish psychoanalysis. Reminds of the kind of inaccurate biographies for which A. N. Wilson's on C. S. Lewis is an example, if we look at the errata list of Kathryn Lindskoog:

A. N. Wilson Errata
Kathryn Lindskoog (bef. 2000 on Into the Wardrobe – a C. S. Lewis website)
http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/wilson-errata/

This was noticed by someone having to deal with A. N. Wilson again:

A.N. Wilson’s C.S. Lewis: A Mythology
Posted on February 11, 2019 on A Pilgrim in Narnia
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2019/02/11/a-n-wilsons-c-s-lewis-a-mythology/

Which, in turn, led to this debate:

HGL's F.B. writings : Comparing Inaccuracies : A. N. Wilson on CSL / Shrinks on Patients
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2019/02/comparing-inaccuracies-n-wilson-on-csl.html

TL;DR : I don't care for shrinkish psychoanalysis. Especially in the predictive form.

// Every questioning of historical accuracy, every example of internal contradiction is met with rational explanations of how the Scriptures must be true. //

Or how they can be true, and therefore, given qui loquutus est per prophetas also are so.

// Extreme examples are those who insist on “Young Earth Creationism,” //

Fine. Since I suppose Fr Freeman is of either Russian Orthodox jurisdiction or an OCA (Orthodox Church of America) close to it, this gives one clue on how Putin's henchmen may be interpreting "extremism" which in Russia seems to be an offense in itself, irrespective of acts. Unlike heresy in Spain (back in the times between Torquemada and 1820) not only is it irrespective of acts, but also irrespective of objective and verifiable criteria.

A Spanish Inquisitor went schismatic, impatient at all the guys he had to be releasing as unduly suspect ("no, I am not crypto-Judaising, I just like shrimps more than porc and I had already eaten a lot, that's why I said no thanks to the heavy chorizo plate yesterday" - "you are free").

So, after going impatient and schismatic, he goes to Russia, gets drunk on plenty of vodka and can be as happy as the day is long in modern Russia.

Crypto-Judaism is not forbidden, but "extremism" is! And anyone who has a loud voice can determine what it means, because the word has no meaning in itself.

// even suggesting that God created a universe that appeared old, but really isn’t. //

It so happens, this hypothesis is not very popular among Fundies, except those who actually only have heard the Uniformitarian, Deep Time, version of the evidence and what it reasonably looks like.

One can say "God created a universe that looks old to YOU even if it isn't" though, precisely as one can say to a Daltonist, God created rose petals that look green to him or grass that looks red to him, whichever it be. Difference, Daltonism is sth you are born with, this "age blindness" to possibilities of an age being much younger than supposed is acquired and therefore often voluntary.

// In Orthodox circles, this same approach is defended by citing any treatment within a Church Father that supports a literalist understanding. //

Can you cite even one Church Father that supports dissing (not momentarily ignoring in order to seek another purpose, but dissing) the literal understanding as literal history?

It so happens, I haven't. Seen. A. Single. One.

I am not patristcially* illiterate, and I am aware of the "it sometimes happens" quote in St Augustine**, but it is not what you want. It suggests looking carefully at literal sense, not discarding it.

// I have seen Fr. Thomas Hopko, of blessed memory, decried as a heretic because he suggested that Adam may not be a historical figure! //

Well, he should be. C. S. Lewis was touting heresy when writing that chapter in The Problem of Pain. You know the one in which he says (if I recall correctly) "we aren't Fundamentalists" or "we are not Fundamentalists" and claims the modern world to have knowledge that Genesis 1 - 3 is not literally true.

This position has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Hope CSL left it before dying.

// There is some version of a “house of cards” in all of this. //

Here I'll give you a nice "house of cards" : this letter exists, because the computer where I sit exists and functions, the computer functions because electrons are going through certain types of wiring and circuits, the electrons are going through them because they are electrons that move when subjected to electronic charges. But if that isn't true, none of this is happening ... sorry, but in fact, I am seeing the computer screen and can conclude the letter exists even if there were no such things as electrons, electricity would simply be something else.

// If this isn’t literally true, if this isn’t utterly reliable on a rational level, then that may not be true, nor this, nor…until faith itself collapses. //

I would not try to build a faith or anything else on eschewing the question of literal truth where answers are available.

X claims to have seen an alien. One from Pleiades, so as to avoid the obviously demonic appearance of grey ones, leading conclusions in one single direction.

The nice Pleiadean alien - was it a demon, an angel, a fairy (and what are they, if so), a hallucination, or a lie by X?

We don't know. For a Grey One, as they are described, good angel from God can be excluded. For an honest X, lie by him can be excluded. If his body was healthy close after witnessing, hallucination should be excluded.

On certain grounds of perspective and speed, actual aliens from Pleiades are to be excluded. If these are close enough to be reachable, they are too small for life to evolve there (I'll be back to another alternative). If they are big enough for inhabited planets like ours, they are too far off for rockets to bring them with the speed required for them to survive.

If they are blessed souls from Heaven, or angels, well, then they would be God's choice, but if they speak heresy, and denying a real historic Adam is so, they are not from God. If they promote sin, they are also not from God. If an angel from Heaven ... [Galatians 1:8]

Now, any thing can be excluded if there is a rational reason to exclude it. This doesn't mean all certainty can be excluded. There cannot be fully rational reasons to exclude everything. Because something necessarily is true, even if it is only that I made this up as an example.

Similarily, certainty of faith cannot crumble to nothing, it can only change allegiance. To some this goes from Fundamentalist to Unbeliever. To some it goes from Unbeliever to Fundamentalist.

Supposing that the Fundamentalist who became an unbeliever actually was tricked by Fundamentalism, why does that also allow conversion to happen?

Your myth about the Fundie who became an Atheist (not saying that bare fact is always fictional, I know at least four examples on youtube) says sth which would predict Fundamentalism cannot work conversions.

I can only give you the story of my own, starting at age 9, from Evolution believer and otherwise agnostic about most not directly given.

A historical Adam cemented my conversion, just as scholastic distinctions between mind and matter did. It is obvious language does not arise from animal sounds. It is obvious that mind is not a byproduct of matter.

And it is also obvious, if Jesus Christ was God, as He was, is, and ever shall be, He knew what He was talking about.

You know, rationality, unlike a certain school of rationalism, doesn't start with John Locke.

// In the Greek, it does not say “He opened their understanding.” Rather, it says, “He opened their nous.” The Scriptures are noetically understood. The nous and the heart are synonymous in many of the Fathers. It is by no means a synonym for discursive reason. //

Understanding is not per se discursive. In man, it is often reached discursively, but discursivity is not its essence, it's a byproduct. Freeman plays fast and loose with the kind of "bad Pleiadean message" that too often attacks St Thomas Aquinas as father of Luther, Locke, Holbach, Enlightenment philosophers and Revolutions.

Noetical does not rationally speaking mean irrationally. And Old Testament meaning MORE than its literal history, is sth quite other than Old Testament NOT meaning ALL it tells as history.

I suppose "noetic" is not in Nicene Creed, but "qui loquutus est per prophetas" is, whether it comes after "qui ex patre" or after "qui ex patre filioque procedit". Men were not ignorant of the category rational or the category actually true just because they were living before Locke, and the Holy Ghost was not lying to them that seeked*** that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Georgia of Clermont
15.II.2019

* Patristically. ** I meant the quote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics;

There are many other quotes involving "it sometimes happens", not this one, and it does NOT recommend discarding literalism, see here in extenso.

That page has another quote giving a good example of what St Augustine meant, and here I have quoted it, with comment:

Creation vs. Evolution : Was St Augustine against Literalism?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/10/was-st-augustine-against-literalism.html

*** Sought, I was forced to leave a place where I could otherwise have fallen asleep reasonably soon, and this after eating too much the evening, bc I was offered prepared meals after already starting a meal. I think I need another coffee, and could do with some eating again ... a bit lighter.

CMI on Allegorical Method - Answered

1) Creation vs. Evolution : If some pseudo-orthodox thinks Patristic and Literal interpretation of Genesis are incompatible ..., 2) CMI on Allegorical Method - Answered, 3) Literal Sense vs Literalistic Approach, Allegoric Sense vs Figurative Approach, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Congratulating Lita Cosner on agreeing basically with StThomas Aquinas, 5) Mark Shea's Understanding of Scripture, 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Neither Sungenis nor Palm is totally right on Psalm 18 (Sungenis is less off)

As one on CMI stated correctly on the case of St Augustine and his take on six days, he believed in the allegorical method and this is not a denial of the historicity of the Old Testament texts*, since - here I add to their take - unlike an allegory by a human author who adapts his fictional story to what he is trying to expose (Fred Clark made on about a man claiming "Gospel of St Matthew denies there is an Ohio"), God can adapt real events to be prophecies about what He wants to reveal further on.

They seem critical of the allegorical method as if it meant "wanting to extract further information beyond the history", when in fact it is rather a checking of matches. Like the one Our Lord made between Hades and the whale of the grave and the whale or Jonah and Himself.

Now, it is basics that Adam allegorises Christ (it is also Biblical, he is called "the last Adam"), and Eve variously the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Church. I just found another matching item. It is of course well known that as Adam slept and God created Eve of a wound (temporary) in his side, so also Christ slept on the Cross and God created the Church out of His opened side, denoting by the water and blood the principal two of the Seven Sacraments that constitute the Church.

However, Adam named the animals before he slept. One Hovind video, Kent is making a little charade on this as if it had said directly that God let him choose his bride (it can be an indication thereof that it says he found no suitable help). "The hamster - too small, the giraffe - too big ..." and the list went on in Eden if Kent Hovind got this right (and we know that a list with probably Hebrew words for hamster and for giraffe was pronounced on Day Six - that is on the First Friday which corresponds to Good Friday). But did Christ in any sense name the animals on Good Friday?

Well, he implied Judaism - the guys taunting him and being about to found the wrongful and apostate Jewish religion - was "the bulls of Bashan". At least they understood His hint, since they fell silent as soon as He cited the first words of the Psalm. It includes lines like taunters taunting King David in very similar words and also the line "the Bulls of Bashan surround me".

Would "bulls of Bashan" not apply better to Samaritan religion than to Jewish one? No. The Samaritan religion was referred to as "cows of Bashan" by Amos. Cows and bulls, whether from Bashan or elsewhere, are not same gender, though same kind.

So, yes, I retain confidence in the Allegoric Method. Use the traces already given in Tradition (or for some items even Holy Bible itself) and follow the clues, you will find more and more support. It is not like trying to see images in shadows cast by a fire, since the support you find can be communicated and judged by others. Others in the Church, alive or already in the Fatherland above ... and if noone else is there, you can also directly confide in God's judgement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Sigfrid of Wexio
St Onesimus
15-II-2014

PS, if someone does not enjoy the designation "bulls of Bashan" being applicable to himself and his family in the eyes of God, St Peter told how to no longer be such. Acts, chapter 2, verses 14 to 40. Fuller comment on same in Haydock.

* "Miller’s inconsistent thinking comes through in many other ways. Like a compromising evangelical, he misrepresents Augustine and Basil (p. 255), and states that the Days in Genesis were supposed to be understood as long periods of time. But Augustine thought that Creation was instantaneous, and so he erred in the diametrically opposite direction. He was a member of the Alexandrian school that fancifully allegorized almost all Scripture (which did not necessarily deny its historicity but tried to seek additional meanings), and was not a Hebrew scholar."

From: Mutilating Miller*
by John Woodmorappe and Jonathan Sarfati
A review of Finding Darwin’s God
by Kenneth R. Miller
Cliff Street Books, New York, 2000
http://creation.com/review-finding-darwins-god-by-kenneth-miller

As to not being a Hebrew scholar, if this were a handicap we would not be able to trust most Church Fathers - which on the contrary we do, whether they were or were not Hebrew scholars or whether we do not know if they were.

Philip Pattemore has written a book called "Am I my keeper's brother?" with a monkey on the front above the title. Shaun Doyle has reviewed it with the necessary corrections, mostly. He does not forget to remark the Bulverism in Pattemore's work, which is a good thing, nor to remark the total lack of exact citation or reference to any work by any Creationist, even when it could have helped explain his point, for instance when Philip speaks about baraminology - on which I trust Shaun Doyle. I have myself had occasion to look at a book* about Creationism in USA written by a French "Catholic" priest and "Dominican" friar, whom I think St Robert Bellarmine and St Pius V and St Thomas Aquinas might very well disown - and it misrepresents creationists as much in the pages I read that as to make me believe Philip Pattemore does the same thing.

However, here is the essay, the link to it:

No keeper’s brother
Am I My Keeper’s Brother?—Human Origins From A Christian And Scientific Perspective, Philip Pattemore New Zealand, 2011
Reviewed by Shaun Doyle
http://creation.com/review-philip-pattemore-my-keepers-brother

And here is a quote - from the review answering the book, not from the book itself, which I am not quite satisfied with.

He claims the church has a rather vexed history with science over the antipodes, geocentrism, and racism. The first is completely false—the ‘received opinion’ came not from the Bible but from Augustine, whose theology on the point was good, but his geography was bad. This was falsified by Christians before Columbus first set sail (Bartholomew Diaz rounded the southern tip of Africa in 1488—four years before Columbus sailed west to try and reach India) and didn’t impact the Christian hegemony of Europe. The second was the result of reading Ptolemaic cosmology into the Bible, and the third was also reading modern notions of race into the Bible—actually racism was aided by anti-biblical notions, including ‘pre-Adamites’ and evolution itself (figure 2). In all three cases the problem was not the Bible but the ideas men brought to the Bible. However, deep time and evolution directly contradict the Scriptures.

And another quote, from a picture text (picture featuring oceanic divides west and south of Oecumene):

Figure 2. The ‘antipodean heresy’ is the idea that humans lived on the opposite side of the globe who were not sons of Adam. It has oft been claimed that this notion caused the church to oppose Columbus’ proposed voyage west to reach India, though it is without historical basis.

Now, what St Augustine had said was NOT that « humans lived on the opposite side of the globe who were not sons of Adam », but that there lived no humans on the opposite side of the globe, because:

• a) Adam and Noah lived on this side of it (as do we)
  
  And
  
  
• b) it seems to be impossible to get over to the other side of it by sailing.

What this saint but landlubber (hey I am a landlubber too, most of us are, but I have a ship’s captain in my family !) thought was that if anyone had sailed over the Ocean West of the Pillars of Hercules, he would also have sailed back and told us about it.

He did not know certain streams make sailing West much easier than sailing East. And he most certainly had nothing to do with Antipodean heresy about non-Adamites. Except by rejecting it beforehand.

Some Spaniards possibly did have something to do with it. They were, if so, laymen. The Catholic Church condemned the theory very promptly.

If the theory was proposed, it could not have been exactly repeating St Augustine’s argument – the Spaniards had after all sailed across the Atlantic (as the Ocean between America and Europe is called since it was discovered as not continuous with Pacific), and they had then sailed back. If the sailing question came into it, it was rather that they saw no technical possibility to sail across the Ocean with technology available to Amerindians even of the more technologically advanced in 1492 - 1520 and following years(we thank Thor Heyerdahl for the voyages known after vehicles as Kon Tiki and Ra that made us see they were wrong), and they were not thinking in terms of technology loss. The Church which was sure they were real descendants from Adam and from Noah was thinking in terms of technology loss, proof, the Jesuit Missions gave the Guaranís Agricultural technology and were called « reductiones » because they were « drawing back » the Indians to a human know-how they had left, as well as giving them back to the true God whom they had presumably left under Nimrod's apostasy.

But the main reason for the theory Indians were pre-Adamites, as formulated by often military laymen, was the observation of human sacrifice and the prejudice that such a thing could not be committed by any being really human.

Geocentrism is not « reading Ptolemy into the Bible » even as much as Christian Heliocentrism is reading Galileo – Kepler – Newton into it.

Ptolemy was certainly Geocentric, he was certainly supporting Geocentrism with some arguments that Galileo refuted, but Geocentrism does very much not depend on Ptolemy or on his failed arguments. And it is there in Bible as read by any Church Father up to the Galileo affair reading and commenting Joshua X or Psalm XCII.

Actually, if Pattermore is by denying Young Earth, descent from Adam, special creation of the same, original sin, personal sin, possibility of personal salvation from both sins, setting up a scheme where Catholic eschatology of the immediately after death is compromised (basically joining hands with Jews and Russellians), the deniers of Earth’s being still and down, and of Heaven’s motion going to cease and of Heaven having a limit to what is visible from us, beyond which are located the bodies of Jesus and of Mary as well as the Seraphim and the souls of the just not yet resurrected (Henoch and Eliah would be bodily present on a lower sphere before their return, martyrdom and final resurrection Apocalypse 11), are in their turn setting up a difficulty about Catholic Ultimate Eschatology, about where bodies of the Resurrected just will be located.

The Catholic Church, as it did not support pre-Adamite theory, as it even condemned it, and as it had not yet been confronted with Darwin, was not racialist. Some Catholic laymen ignoring Church teaching were.

There are of course other things to say on other paragraphs of this major refutation of a major error. Let it suffice for this essay that Creation.com has had staff on occasion being patronising to a Geocentric critic and that the mantra on Church « reading Ptolemy into the Bible » (which St Robert Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIII were very much not) is a bit Bulverising. Precisely as Pattermore is to the Creationists.

Not to mention that Distant Star problem which just vanishes into hot air if confronted with a serious defense of Geocentrism. Which I consider possible and have tried my hands at.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Nicolas of Myra
in Lycia in Asia Minor
6-XII-2013

*I did not review all of the book, but the part where Jacques Arnould O.P. finds it amazing that a Creationist he met could affirm that God created Paris. He thinks men did. I reviewed that in an essay trying to disentangle the respective roles of God and of men:

deretour : Qui créa Paris, Dieu ou l'homme?
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/qcpdolh.html

But I did neither read nor review the rest of the book.

Was St Augustine against Literalism?

This quote - ironically - comes via No Answers in Genesis:

It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.

What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?

But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.

But someone may ask: "Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, 'who stretches out heaven like a skin?' " Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false. The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise. But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault.

For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but to be reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved.

Our picture of heaven as a vault, even when taken in a literal sense, does not contradict the theory that heaven is a sphere. We may well believe that in speaking of the shape of heaven Scripture wished to describe that part which is over our heads. If, therefore, it is not a sphere, it is a vault on that side on which it covers the earth; but if it is a sphere, it is a vault all around.

But the image of the skin presents a more serious difficulty: we must show that it is reconcilable not with the sphere (for that may be only a man-made theory) but with the vault of Holy Scripture.

My allegorical interpretation of this passage can be found in the thirteenth book of my Confessions. Whether the description of heaven stretched out like a skin is to be taken as I have interpreted it there or in some other way, here I must take into account the doggedly literal-minded interpreters and say what I think is obvious to everyone from the testimony of the senses.

Both the skin and the vault perhaps can be taken as figurative expressions; but how they are to be understood in a literal sense must be explained. If a vault can be not only curved but also flat, a skin surely can be stretched out not only on a flat plane but also in a spherical shape. Thus, for instance, a leather bottle and an inflated ball are both made of skin.

Here is how they used it:

From the way Augustine responds to various questions which have been put forward, there is a clear implication that many people in his day (around AD 400) thought that not only the earth but also the heavens were flat.

What the guys at "No Answers in Genesis" fail to grasp is the distinction between thinking something is literally in the Bible and knowing for sure it is.

When St Augustine argues the heavens are a sphere (which as for fix stars modern cosmologists are basically denying, based on taking so called parallax as really parallactic and therefore as a real trigonometric distance measure, thereby making the heavens of the fixed stars very much less like the inside of a spheric tent), he takes very good care to at the same time carefully show he is not contradicting the literal meaning of the Bible. The word "flat" is not there in the text when God stretches out the Heavens as "a skin" (or a tent). And it is not implied by the stretching out either:

If a vault can be not only curved but also flat, a skin surely can be stretched out not only on a flat plane but also in a spherical shape. Thus, for instance, a leather bottle and an inflated ball are both made of skin.

Why does he say this? Because he really thinks it is literally true that Heaven is like a vault and like a skin stretched out.

Our picture of heaven as a vault, even when taken in a literal sense, does not contradict the theory that heaven is a sphere. We may well believe that in speaking of the shape of heaven Scripture wished to describe that part which is over our heads. If, therefore, it is not a sphere, it is a vault on that side on which it covers the earth; but if it is a sphere, it is a vault all around.

But the image of the skin presents a more serious difficulty: we must show that it is reconcilable not with the sphere (for that may be only a man-made theory) but with the vault of Holy Scripture.

My allegorical interpretation of this passage can be found in the thirteenth book of my Confessions. Whether the description of heaven stretched out like a skin is to be taken as I have interpreted it there or in some other way, here I must take into account the doggedly literal-minded interpreters and say what I think is obvious to everyone from the testimony of the senses.

He does not discard the doggedly literal-minded interpreters as totally mistaken about Scripture. He thinks he has to take them into account. And if he corrects them, it is not by contradicting the literal sense of the Bible, but by correcting their "literal" interpretation. And he does not do it from "man made theories" but from "what is obvious to everyone from the testimony of the senses."

We do not have an obvious testimony of the senses that such a T Rex head in a museum is 65 million years old and more. We have an obvious testimony of the senses it is there and it is dead, if ever it was alive. And a somewhat less obvious testimony it was in fact alive. We do not have an obvious testimony of the senses that Earth is moving around itself or through space. We have an obvious testimony from sight and inner ears Earth is still and from sight that Sun and Moon and Stars are moving. Both these modern theories are - like the spheric heavens St Augustine was considering - "man made theories" and interpretations of the obvious testimonies of the senses.

But the obvious testimony of the senses he was putting in is that a skin stretched out need not be stretched out flat on a flat surface. Meaning that God stretching out Heavens like a skin need not mean that Heavens are flat.

Now, is Adam and Eve literally in the Bible? And literally on day six rather than after millions or billions of years of other creatures? Yes. Is this confirmed by God? Yes, in the very words of Our Lord, those that have become so very reactualised by the debate in US and French legislation about the nature of Marriage. Marc 10:6. And similarily Earth standing still and Sun getting around it is literally in the words of one whom St Robert Bellarmine considered too wise to state anything that could be refuted. King Solomon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Jude
28-X-2013

PS, for those eager to read the very famous StAugustine quote they also cite in context, here is Book one of De Genesi ad Litteram:

Book I, the Work of the First Day (excerpt from translation by John Hammond Taylor S. J.)

St Augustine gives an inch and some take an ell

Series: 1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere 2) somewhere else : Bible and Church Questions 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Why I have a Personal Grudge against Kenotic Heresy 4) item : St Augustine gives an inch and some take an ell 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : When St Augustine makes a fault, it is not all that faulty

Where did St Augustine write about Genesis? There may be a passage in Confessions. There certainly are parts in City of God and in Questions about the Heptateuch (Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges). There may be parts of Revisions. There is De Genesi ad Literam in twelve books, De Genesi ad Literam one incomplete book and De Genesi ad Literam against the Manichees. There may of course also be passages in Letters. And in each case of the three works named De Genesi ad Literam, the title so far means "on Genesis [taken] at the letter", and in each case this refers to the fact that it also has spiritual senses - like Eve taken from a rib of Adam while he slept denoting Church taken from the opened side of Jesus Christ while he hung dead on the Cross. Now, thing is, Kent Hovind said that evolutionists contradict Jesus and Saint Paul. In both cases there are people who try to get around this using Saint Augustine. And in both cases I would say that if St Augustine gives an inch, they take an ell. If you know a certain proverb, I would say that gives them, but not St Augustine a certain similarity to the Devil. Jesus said: From the beginning of Creation God created them man and woman.* Now, if someone playing around with St Augustine likes, he can say: "sure, in the beginning of creation, the way St Augustine speaks of the six days, God created all there is in its roots, and then after that there were billions of years until Adam was actually formed in time and matter and Eve too, but they had already been formed in their causes billions of years before that. That does not make Jesus a liar." Hold it a minute! This is in De Genesi ad Literam book five and onwards at least into book six. St Augustine did say the six days and the seventh days were essentially atemporal. He also says that taking them as temporal, as six and the seventh time 24 hours lapse is, if not quite adepquate, at least good enough for beginners. He does most certainly not say that the kind of indeterminate lapse of material and temoral time between Adam's individual body being created and him getting married to Eve could amount to billions of years. Still less that God would successively have created world after world without man and all different from ours and from each other before landing on the one with man. On the contrary, his basis for taking the six days and seventh days as other than normal days is Genesis 2:4-5. That passage contains "day" in the singular.** OK, says St Augustine, then there were not six different days, only one day. Repeated six times. And that means it was not temporal. It also says of this day "before any herbs were germing".**

*Gospel According to Saint Mark : Chapter 10 : [6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. [7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. [It is pretty cool the verse containing these words is 10:6, while Gospel has all in all 16 chapters.] **Book Of Genesis : Chapter 2 : [4] These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth. ***Ecclesiasticus Chapter 18 : [1] He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever. °Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans : Chapter 5 : [12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [Here 5:12 makes a sum of 17. These verses "sixteen going on seventeen" do not need someone "older and wiser" telling them what to say, and St Augustine does not pretend to be so either.] °°The City of God (Book I) Chapter 9.— Of the Reasons for Administering Correction to Bad and Good Together. What, then, have the Christians suffered in that calamitous period, which would not profit every one who duly and faithfully considered the following circumstances? First of all, they must humbly consider those very sins which have provoked God to fill the world with such terrible disasters; for although they be far from the excesses of wicked, immoral, and ungodly men, yet they do not judge themselves so clean removed from all faults as to be too good to suffer for these even temporal ills. ... If any one forbears to reprove and find fault with those who are doing wrong, because he seeks a more seasonable opportunity, or because he fears they may be made worse by his rebuke, or that other weak persons may be disheartened from endeavoring to lead a good and pious life, and may be driven from the faith; this man's omission seems to be occasioned not by covetousness, but by a charitable consideration. But what is blame-worthy is, that they who themselves revolt from the conduct of the wicked, and live in quite another fashion, yet spare those faults in other men which they ought to reprehend and wean them from; and spare them because they fear to give offense, lest they should injure their interests in those things which good men may innocently and legitimately use—though they use them more greedily than becomes persons who are strangers in this world, and profess the hope of a heavenly country. For not only the weaker brethren who enjoy married life, and have children (or desire to have them), ...

OK, says St Augustine, who had had a Platonic education before becoming Christian, this means what God created in the six days were not yet any individual items of anything. Growth still had to happen. Biological process did not start till after the six days. But he gives a parallel passage*** to support this reading of Genesis 2:4-5.** This parallel passage*** says God created everything at once. It is pretty obviously in visible or at least apparent contradiction with Cuvierism, with the idea now proposed by Hugh Ross, the idea of God first creating one world like fauna and flora and climate and all, then the next, then the next and each successive one containing traces of the earlier ones. If St Augustine was by any chance wrong, then "day" in Genesis 2:4-5** would be using the word yôm in a looser sense, like "occasion". And the parallel passage*** would be using "at once" in a somewhat looser sense too. As, obvious to us now, opposed exactly to Cuvierism or successive stages of creation evolving on top of each other. As opposed to creating trilobites on one occasion, then waiting for millions of years, then creating dinosaurs on another occasion, and again waiting millions of years, then creating Australopithecus on one occasion and waiting a million of years to see how he was doing, then creating Adam and Eve. With death in between all those occasions, which brings us to the next point. But first one pause on the topic of six days. Even if St Augustine was exactly right about atemporality of six days, as St Thomas Aquinas points out, this does not exclude that the first seven days of actual material time mature all the items created "in their causes" in the atemporal six days" as well as the rest in a temporal so to speak repetation or rehearsal of the atemporal six days. St Paul said: By the sin of one man, death came into the world.° Same kind of guy would say: "sure, death as a punishment for humans came with the fall, but since St Augustine says animals would have died even before that, we can accept evolution." Right, he said that carnivores were carnivores and would have eaten by killing even if Adam had not sinned. Note that his argument is a very total fixism and non-evolution of the carnivorous species. If a lion was exactly a lion as we know them, and if a wolf was exactly a wolf as we know them, or even a cat and a dog exactly a cat and a dog, as we know them, and if each species of finches of the Galapagos islands was created seperately on the fifth day and had a separate couple of ancestors on the Arc of Noah, then St Augustine has proven there were animals eaten before Adam sinned. And animals eaten obviously means animals dying. But in that other scenario that evolutionists give, animal death is not limited to some deaths to feed some animals, it is actually made the chief instrument for weeding out the varieties not wanted for "next step in evolution". St Augustine weakens "by the sin of one man, death entered the world" but he never reverses it to - as do the evolutionists - "by death man entered into the world". And maybe for a very good reason. You see, St Augustine was a convert from Manichean heresies. To them, to the heretics adherring to them, man precisely as a biological being is a product of a kind of spiritual death or fall. The souls that stayed quite alive never made it to be men, they remained body-less spirit children of the purely spiritual "God". Man as living on earth is the product of such beings getting trapped by the "other god" of death and materiality. So, to a Manichean as much as to an Evolutionist it would seem true enough to say "by death, man entered into the world". But St Augustine had washed off that shit from his mind, when he asked St Ambrose for baptism. As an ex-Palmarian, I know what it means to stake the view of creation on St Augustine. The Papacy or Antipapacy at Palmar de Troya has issued a creed in which a recent creation, but that one "in one moment" is raised to status of dogma of the creed. The people who just barely avoid contradicting Our Lord Jesus Christ and St Paul by taking an ell where St Augustine gives an inch, to me they are very clearly sham Augustinians on that precise point. So, I have taken my distance from Palmar de Troya, even before I left Sweden. When I did, I started reaffirming literality of six days as most probable since supported by most Church Fathers. Some people similarily - like Palmar de Troya - place St Augustine over the other Church Fathers - for sake of whose authority St Thomas Aquinas insisted on the possibility of harmonising by a rehearsal of the heptapartite initial not yet successive moment of Creation with subsequent heptapartite week in time of maturing with miraculous rapidity what had been created "in its seeds" or "in its causes" in the "one moment week". They similarily place St Augustine over the other Church Fathers, but only when it suits them. That is where they are not like Palmar de Troya, which refrains from going beyond St Augustine away from other Church Fathers on this one. Dom Gérard Calvet, who was founder and first abbot of Le Barroux, Sainte Madeleine Monastery (one kilometre or so above Le Barroux village and castle), clearly had read the fifth book of the twelve book work on Genesis. He finds the prologue of St John's Gospel make better sense that way. Any tree "was life" in God the Son from all eternity as knowledge about treeness is part of God's Wisdom and hence eternal life. Then - possibly - it was created in its treeness in the third recurrence of the one-moment day. A one moment in which God decided that trees should be among the infinite possibilities He knew that He also brought to actuality. Then individual trees were created up to present - very probably with the first ones created on the third lapse of 24 hours of actual time. Now, Dom Gérard Calvet did support this reading of St John's prologue. He was certainly a devout Catholic, a real friend of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He was also a friend of two people - Father Bryan Houghton, who described Evolutionism as rehashed Buddhism, but also Gustave Thibon, who thinks a certain evolution with its painfulness is an essential to the production of Christian saints, of hallowed souls. Now, I have not read much of Gustave Thibon, but I do fear he may have been a supporter of Thestic Evolution. Father Bryan Houghton clearly was not. The Pseudo-Jesuit Pierre Theilhard de Chardin (a favourite intellectual enemy of Father Bryan Houghton), as we all know, was a supporter thereof. Whether Dom Gérard was a Theistic Evolutionist or not, I leave, for the present to God's privy. If he was, "he was wrong on that one" - amicus Gerhardus, magis amica veritas. But I thought it worth mentioning the fact that people who have read St Augustine with even less attention than I used yesterday - including those who have read only selected quotes - may feel able to plead not guilty to the charge that evolutionism makes Our Lord Jesus Christ and St Paul look wrong or misinforming. They should not need to immediately take heat as heretics from people who may be orthodox on Genesis but wrong on even more important matters. However, I should not neglect to inform these evolutionists who think they are no heretics, who think they respect scrupulously the words of Christ through the Catholic interpretation of St Augsutine, that the same St Augustine might have a point about why the Church is on the brink of being submitted to persecution by certain powers. City of God. Got it? Now look up Book I. Got that one too?°° Now, there is a chapter called chapter IX. I am one of the guys that St Augustine calls weak. I still hope to have children. I do not like the prospect of my family getting persecuted - whenever I shall get it. But I do say what I think about Evolutionism. Or about Heliocentric false philosophies too. Some guys are what St Augustine calls strong. They are monks or bishops, like Dom Gérard or Monsignor Lefèbvre were in their mortal life. And some of them are still a bit queezy about correcting the evil mighty ones. Read through that chapter and see what such behaviour brings in terms of misfortunes that the good share with the bad when living together in a society. Hans-Georg Lundahl BpI, Georges Pompidou Sunday after St Lawrence and before Assumption of the BVM 11-VIII-2013

A little PS: This link is These links are too good to miss, while we talk about dates:

Creation Ministries International: How do you date a New Zealand volcano? by Robert Doolan http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

CMI : The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations. by Tas Walker http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating