Infighting? Because Fact First.

You look at the latest five posts prior to this one, four are adressed to CMI as disagreements, and one is adressed in general to Christians disagreeing with our common premise of Biblical inerrancy.

Only once you scroll past this, you get to a non-polemic (within Christendom, though polemic as against Uniformitarians, most of which are non-Christians or very loosely Christian) article, namely Scandinavian Stone Age Within Biblical History with my Table.

Facts are concerned with things, where curious people demand technical solutions to technical problems, if any. And in a world very dominated by Uniformitarians who believe Big Bang, Galaxies, Heliocentrism for each star that has planets, "including ours", Millions and Billions of Years, Abiogenesis by chemical processes, evolution of all things alive (or very few and minute exceptions) from one Last Universal Common Ancestor, common to bees and bananas, and humanisation by degrees involving tool use as being as important or more than language and morals, much of the other story, the one that used to dominate Christendom, will at first glance look problematic.

Or, the few times when we actually have a very non-problematic case, where the Uniformitarian one is admittedly immediately problematic (like origin of life and of language), we are up against a variety of people who claim to have solutions - even if they differ as much as ours.

This means, once we get into details, we get to areas where the Bible cannot be overturned, but needs to be supplemented by other observations, for the curious, and these areas are obviously open for disagreements.

Wishing to make it clear, both CMI and I, both Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, actually do believe Biblical inerrancy is a factual truth.

We are not stating Global Flood merely as an enumerative example of a Biblical inerrance merely adopted as rhetoric exaggeration for accepting Biblical values, which in turn may be a solemn rhetorical way of saying one adopts values current among people who used to believe Bible or OT part of Bible, perhaps also including the Qoran.

We do not value the Flood of Noah as a rhetorical point only (it is one also), we value the story of its happening as factual information. Hence technical solutions on "where in geological column" to put limit between Flood and post-Flood layers.

We do not value Biblical chronology as merely a resumé on "information got passed down from Adam" (though that happened too), but Genesis 4, 5 and 11 give lists of important intermediaries very much overlapping with each other in lifespans (the latter point is less evident in Genesis 4). This means, a chronology where either Adam has to be put as not first man or the intermediaries between him and Abraham are vastly inflated in number, most anonymous and the named ones usually not overlapping, is a complete nono. Hence technical solutions on which Bible text is correct on Chronology and on how Uniformitarian chronologies are to be explained in their inflation of ancient times before us.

We disagree, because on one very important point we agree : "Biblical values" are not enough. The Bible isn't true like Silmarillion is true or Lord of the Rings is true, namely only in morals. The Bible is true like the multiplication table or - better still, since not a priori but empiric - like the periodic table of Mendeleiev is true. As fact, first.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
XIII Sunday after Pentecost
and Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
8.IX.2019