mercredi 20 février 2019

Ten Answers




Answers to part 1:

1. Can we start by agreeing that the Gospel is more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?

I tend to get suspicious when someone starts a conversation or part of it with "Can we start by agreeing that ...?"

It gives the impression, if one refuses the agreement, one is not worth normal, rational talking to.

In a very banal and trivial sense, as in factually comparing the relative importance of two important things, yes.

back to top

2. Does the age of the earth – or its shape – matter to a Christian?

Both do. Especially in the light of end times prophecy, which can matter a lot. How old the Earth was before Christ came determines how much can be left if Christ came in the latter part of history. For instance, if Earth is seven billion years old, we could have another billion years before Doomsday, Christ would still have come in the fulness of time. If Earth is 7000 years old, we may be already in the last millennium, and already close to the end of it.

Shape of Earth determines where "four corners" are, as to Apocalypse 7:1 and as to presence of Magog in these corners.

back to top

3. Does the Bible teach that the earth is spherical?

Indirectly, and with modern knowledge of geography, yes kind of, if you look at four corners, since the "rectangle on a sphere" gives much neater four corners of Continents than "flat overall circle with North Pole in the Middle." I have not seen any modern map with "flat circle with Jerusalem in the middle". However, that would also be an option as far as the Bible itself was concerned.

In itself, it teaches neither, especially to those reading it first or hearing it read first, but upholds a kind of neutrality between "round earth" cosmology of Phoenicians and "flat earth" cosmology of Babylonians. But it thereby allowed some who were eager to jump to conclusions to show they weren't the true faith, the Bible gave them "enough rope to hang themselves with" so to speak (Rabbinic Judaism and Nestorianism seem historically to have been into this, unlike Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy).

back to top

4. How could people in 1000 BC grasp the idea of geological time?

This phrase has two connotations, but ... the one CMI took on seems to be the less relevant one, as I saw (on the sneak peek, when copying questions), they took on the concept of "millions of years". I have hammered more than one reply to this for some time, whenever I came across this, and they agree with me : understanding millions of years, if that had happened to be true, would not have been a problem.

But, I think this is more important, "geological time" refers to a certain method of "measuring time".

No, they would probably not have understood the concept of measuring time by a geological column which happens not to be a very column shaped column for land vertebrates anywhere. That is, they might have understood it as presented in text books, but as it is measured against "field data" it is very puzzling. It is a bad idea, and should be replaced by geological geography for the times of the Flood, since most places have no more than one layer of very old life forms, fossils or subfossils, and those that do generally are vertical alignments of sea biotopes, which could be arranged by sea actually having accomodated vertical biotopes while the Flood was setting on - sometimes in places now land, like Lienz, and one neighbouring direction from Vienna.

back to top

5. Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?

No, but the primary meaning in historical books is usually conveyed in very direct literal language. Imagining such and such a passage was in fact meant metaphorically, but was always taken very literally in the past (always in the primary and for instance historical context), and was only now discovered to be a metaphor when presumed scientific discoveries gave seeming reasons to doubt the literal sense, that is very ... convenient, for the scientists, but also arrogant on part of the exegete, who understands basically everything better than basically everyone in the past.

back to top

Now I'll take a look at the answers of CMI on part 1.

Intro gives context. Nice to know the context. From answer to Q1 we get very important theology:

Michael Roberts’ rock collection is not millions of years old as he implies. It testifies not of long ages of death before sin (as per the evolutionary view), but rather, gives evidence of Noah’s Flood and the truth of our Lord’s testimony regarding it. Nor was Jesus wrong about His genealogy (Luke 3:23–38), directly linking Him to the historical figures of Noah and Adam. Neither was His Father culpable of deception in allowing Jesus to teach error—a blasphemous consequence of such faulty thinking.


Correct, of course. And in question 2 we get the point of positive evidence for earth being young. From answer to Q3:

Neither can Michael Roberts force Galileo to serve his argument, because Galileo offered empirical scientific evidence for Earth’s orbit around the sun (the heliocentric view) contrary to the Catholic Church’s adherence to geocentric Greek philosophy. In other words, Galileo was not advocating anything contrary to Scripture.


Incorrect.

The Catholic Church adhered to Geocentrism bc of the Bible, after already deciding to "hang loose" on the relevant parts of Greek philosophy.

The phrase that says "because Galileo offered empirical scientific evidence for Earth’s orbit around the sun" is as incorrect as any phrase claiming we now have evidence for millions or billions of years. He didn't, nor has anyone done so after him. While concentric perfectly solid spheres are indeed out, since Tycho observed a comet, Tychonic and Copernican views of Cosmos remained valid options, and if anything the observations considered as "parallax" disproved a strictly Copernican view and not the Tychonic one. Especially not with angelic movers.

In answering Q4, it is stressed how alarmist the questioner is in saying “If the dates are wrong then so is all physics”. Presumably, the former geologist was indoctrinated with, ages being directly consequential of two quantities only, measured parent (and daughter) isotopes and (measured or presumed measured) half life, not noting there is a third one, original content of parent (and daughter) isotopes. Presumably that has been systematically presented as non-problematic and trivial.

In Q5, I have said basically what they said.

back to top

Answers to part 2:

6. Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?

This presumes, no death before sin were my primary reason, which in my own case it is not.

It also presumes no death before sin would affect only say dinos or ichthyosaurs and only if animal death is specifically included.

No death before sin affects Neanderthals, some of which are found with marks of cannibalism, if they are presumed to have lived that long ago, meaning:

  • pretending Neanderthals were not human
  • pretending history after Adam's sin is much longer than very clearly suggested by chapters after chapter 3 in Genesis
  • or seeing Neanderthals and even Cro-Magnon as men who died, sometimes atrociously, before there was human sin, at least on the general level of original sin - if so, why would Adam be ancestor to all men? Or why would all men inherit his sin?


I prefer the answer, they lived between Adam and the Flood (though CMI has a preference for post-Babel). This way, the cannibalism involved has a context like ...

And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, ... And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) Genesis 6:5,11,12

back to top

7. Is young earth creationism the traditional Christian view?

As to each scientific argument as scientific argument, no, and neither is the other view - since arguing over carbon 14 or geological column was unknown to most of them.

As to its exegesis on Genesis 1 to 11, arguably yes.

back to top

8. Were early geologists opposed to Christianity and did they use their geology to undermine belief?

  • a) Hutton was opposed to Catholic Christianity, since he was from Edinburgh, ingrown with older Calvinism and newer Enlightenment philosophy, both of which are incompatible with it.

  • b) Cuvier was a Protestant from Holy Roman Empire, and he was about the same generation as Mallet du Pan, a Calvinist from Geneva who thought the Bible was not applicable in astronomy.

    Personne, ajoute Mallet du Pan, n'ignore que Galilée eut la liberté de se défendre, et qu'il se défendit. Cette apologie, conservée dans une de ses lettres manuscrites... est un véritable galimatias. Ce n'est pas la réalité du mouvement de la terre qu'il démontre aux inquisiteurs, il ergote avec eux sur Job et sur Josué

    Nobody, Mallet du Pan adds, is ignorant that Galileo was at liberty to defend himself, and defend himself he did. This apology, preserved in one of his handwritten letters ... is a veritable galimatias. It is not the reality of the movement of the Earth that he demonstrates to the Inquisitors, he disputes with them on Job and Joshua.*


    Cuvier can have felt about Genesis, as Mallet du Pan about Job and Joshua. Catholics, in their time (at least some) as in the times of Galileo (basically all) Catholics were confident the Bible is inerrant on whatever it touches on.

  • c) Lyell was an Anglican of the Broad Church party, in attack of Biblical inerrancy. As demonstrated by CMI:

    CMI : Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda—to free science “from Moses”
    by David Catchpoole and Tas Walker, 19 August 2009
    https://creation.com/charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses

    Whatever he may have felt politically about Catholics in England, he was very opposed to Catholicism.**


back to top

9. Did Christians oppose old earth geology in the past?

Check Haydock.*** Lyell published first edition of Principles of Geology in 1829 (H/T David Catchpoole and Tas Walker). While Father George Leo Haydock had written his Bible commentary before that, it was republished (with Douay Rheims text as Haydock Bible) in US as late as 1853:

ca. 1853: a quarto edition by George Henry and Co. of London, and initially distributed in America by George Virtue of New York. In this edition the commentary was abridged by Canon F. C. Husenbeth (1796–1872). This was the probably the most successful of the Haydock editions, remaining in print through the rest of the century. Circa 1880, The National Publishing Company of Philadelphia imported the stereotype plates from England and mass marketed editions over the imprints of wide range of local booksellers and printing companies, and even got the recently established Montgomery Ward national mail order firm to include it in their catalogue. An extraordinarily large number of copies must have been printed, judging by how frequently surviving copies are met with in the second hand book trade. A copy of this edition was used in the Inauguration of President John F. Kennedy (1917–1963) in 1961, coincidentally the 150th anniversary of Haydock's first edition. Another copy was used in the inauguration of Vice President Joe Biden.


and even later:

ca. 1874–1878: a large (Imperial) quarto edition by Virtue and Company Limited, of London. In this edition, two converts from the Oxford Movement, Frs. Frederick Oakeley (1802–1880) and Thomas Law (1836–1904) thoroughly revised the commentary to incorporate advances in Biblical scholarship since Haydock's time. An American edition by P. F. Collier of New York, founder of Collier's Weekly magazine, appeared ca. 1884. British editions remained in print until 1910.


Since the comment on Genesis 3, final paragraph, clearly classifies this as history, by giving details on how it was transmitted, it is clearly Young Earth Creationist, and those using it were clearly opposing Lyell, Cuvier, Hutton.

back to top

10. Why do you claim that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?

Why do you claim that so many theologians in the last 2000 years got their Biblical history wrong?

Less rhetorically (a wee bit at least), perhaps because the last 350 years are the last, and this is starting to be fulfilled:

Apocalypse 20:7 And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

I think Communism has a very clear connection both to this prophecy and to ... "millions of years, billions of years", not as if that didn't exist at all before Russian revolution, but since, they have at least very heavily promoted it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Martyrs of Tyre
20.II.2019

Tyri, in Phoenicia, commemoratio beatorum Martyrum, quorum numerum solius scientia Dei colligit. Hi omnes, sub Diocletiano Imperatore, a Veturio, militum magistro, multis tormentorum generibus, sibi invicem succedentibus, occisi sunt; nam, primo quidem flagris toto corpore dilaniati, inde diversis bestiarum generibus traditi, sed ab illis divina virtute nil laesi, post, addita feritate ignis ac ferri, martyrium consummarunt. Eorum vero gloriosam multitudinem ad victoriam incitabant Episcopi Tyrannio, Silvanus, Peleus et Nilus, ac Presbyter Zenobius, qui, felici agone, una cum illis, martyrii palmam adepti sunt.

PS. His blogpost gives a fuller background to Q 7 which he considers rhetorical. Now, here he answers:

Many think so, but NO! The early Christians, right up to 1800, were not clear on the age of the earth as that depended on how literal they thought Genesis was and they had no geological evidence to guide them.


In reality, all or nearly believed it literal, and while the 4004 BC date was not common, the Ukrainean wiki on Young Earth Creationism gives a little list.

Підрахунки, засновані на Септуагінті, традиційно датували створення приблизно 5500 роком до н. е., тоді як якщо брати за основу Самаритянську Тору, можна отримати дату 4300 р. до н.е., а якщо брати за основу Масоретський текст, виходить 4000 р. до н. е.[10] Багато з перших християн, які користувалися Септуагінтою, підраховували дату створення, близьку до 5500 р. до н. е., і християни до Середньовіччя продовжували використовувати цю приблизну оцінку: Климент Александрійський (5592 BC), Секст Юлій Африкан (5501 р. до н. е.), Євсевій (5228 р. до н. е.), Ієронім (5199 р. до н. е.) Іполіт Римський (5500 р. до н. е.), Теофіл Антіохійський (5529 р. до н. е.), Сульпіцій Север (5469 р. до н. е.), Ісидор Севільський (5336 р. до н. е.), Панодор Александрійський[en] (5493 р. до н. е.), Максим Сповідник (5493 р. до н. е.), Георгій Синкелл[en] (5492 р. до н. е.) і Григорій Турський (5500 р. до н. е.)[11][12].


Google translate, with corrections by me:

Calculations based on Septuagint traditionally date the creation of approximately 5500 BC is., then if you take as the basis of the Samaritan Torah, you can get the date 4300 BC, and if you take as the basis Masoretic text, comes out 4000 r. BC. is. Many of the first Christians, who used the Septuagint counted the date of creation close to 5500 BC. is., and Christians in the Middle Ages continued to use this approximate estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Sextus Julius Afrikan (5501 BCE), Eusebius (5228 BCE),Jerome (5199 BCE) Hippolyte of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius North Severus (5469 BC), Isidor of Seville (5336 BCE), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maxim the Confessor (5493 BC), Georgi (Sinkell) Syncellus (5492 BCE) and Gregory (Tursky) of Tours (5500 BC).


William, again:

We argued and got nowhere! Yet when you read a history of geology you soon find many geologists were Christians, from Steno in 1680 up until today.


Steno was a Young Earth Creationist and Flood Geologist. See Tas Walker on him:

CMI : Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Journal of Creation 22(1):93–98, April 2008
https://creation.com/geological-pioneer-nicolaus-steno-was-a-biblical-creationist

He should have mentioned he was also a Catholic convert, dying as a missionary among Catholic diaspora of Denmark and North Germany.

back to top

* Cited via my own post here:

New blog on the kid : Falloux sur Galilée
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/falloux-sur-galilee.html

which cites:

Les lieux communs et falsifications de l'Histoire : Galilée le théologien
http://leslieuxcommunsdelhistoire.blogspot.com/2010/03/galilee-le-theologien.html

Les lieux communs et falsifications de l'Histoire : Galilée le théologien II
http://leslieuxcommunsdelhistoire.blogspot.com/2010/03/galilee-le-theologien-ii.html

Michel Duparc unfortunately cites both Falloux (a somewhat later French monarchist and Catholic, who was temporarily under excommunication) and Mallet du Pan, in such a way that I don't know always whom he cites, but the passage I quoted is directly attributed to Mallet du Pan.

The English translation is mine.

back to text

** CMI considers Hutton and Lyell were Deists:

Both Hutton and Lyell were anti-Bible deists (who were influenced by Masonic belief). They did not ‘read the rocks’, but set out to undo the Bible’s historical credibility, which was accepted at the time of Hutton. Their aim was achieved by subterfuge.


From: 10 answers from biblical creationists—Part 2
by Gavin Cox and Lucien Tuinstra | Published: 26 February 2019 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/10-answers-from-creationists-2

back to text

*** Wikipedia : George Leo Haydock : Haydock's enduring legacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Leo_Haydock#Haydock%27s_enduring_legacy

back to text
Publié par à
Libellés : , , , ,

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire

Inscription à : Publier les commentaires (Atom)