I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? · The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond

But if he didn't, that doesn't mean I should retract from the view of his judges. Unlike Freemasons, I don't count him as a "martyr for science" or as a kind of saint (outside the Roman Catholic lists of saints, Martyrologium Romanum, local pre-congregation etc obviously).

CMI seems to have spent some buildup to attacking Geocentrism, which is a sidekick from their usual fair.

A few days ago, in Evolution quick or slow?, Jonathan Sarfati cited St. Thomas Aquinas:

That is, there are often multiple theories that can explain the same observations. Thomas applied it to the astronomy of the day, but it works just as well for today’s biology:

… as in astronomy the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them.

Summa Theologiae/Theologica > First Part > Question 32, Article 1 > Reply to Objection 2
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1

Let's give some context, first. Objection 2 and Reply to Objection 2, about what question or as the actual questions are here nicknamed "what article" (a "question" is usually a collection of articles, so actually means "question topic").

Question 32. The knowledge of the divine persons. Article 1. Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?

Objection 2. Further, Richard St. Victor says (De Trin. i, 4): "I believe without doubt that probable and even necessary arguments can be found for any explanation of the truth." So even to prove the Trinity some have brought forward a reason from the infinite goodness of God, who communicates Himself infinitely in the procession of the divine persons; while some are moved by the consideration that "no good thing can be joyfully possessed without partnership." Augustine proceeds (De Trin. x, 4; x, 11,12) to prove the trinity of persons by the procession of the word and of love in our own mind; and we have followed him in this (I:27:1 and I:27:3). Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason.

...

Reply to Objection 2. Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true, such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by such reasons. This becomes evident when we consider each point; for the infinite goodness of God is manifested also in creation, because to produce from nothing is an act of infinite power. For if God communicates Himself by His infinite goodness, it is not necessary that an infinite effect should proceed from God: but that according to its own mode and capacity it should receive the divine goodness. Likewise, when it is said that joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some other's good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness. Nor is the image in our mind an adequate proof in the case of God, forasmuch as the intellect is not in God and ourselves univocally. Hence, Augustine says (Tract. xxvii. in Joan.) that by faith we arrive at knowledge, and not conversely.

Now, there is a point where another theory still makes quite a lot of sense. Tychonian theory as perfected by Riccioli who took Kepler into account for instance disagrees on the emptiness of epicentres, making instead the Sun the epicentre, and on top of that, not "epi-single-circular-centre" but "epi-one-of-elliptic-focal-points".

This still leaves the daily motion of heaven proceeding at even speed, as he said just before that, except before day I, after doomsday and on Joshua's long day.

But in order to make Heliocentrism make more sense, you actually must presume God doesn't intervene in the daily motion, which would make earth alone a more adequate subject than the visible universe around earth, contradicting Romans 1:18—20, John 5:17. However, that only is an adequate assumption if you either deny God altogether, or envisage "him" as a kind of watchmaker who needs a pause after making his clockwork, and enjoys to see it move without intervening. St. Thomas envisaged Him as both making an instrument and then playing it ... every day until today, including Sabbaths. Making Him visible through that work, even to Pagans. By contrast, that poor image of a likeness of a corruptible man, Hercules, according to that story (which may involve his bragging, since it takes place well outside Tiryns) lifted up Antaeus with his last forces, because he noticed his own forces were near exhaustion, the exact thing God proves in a daily manner is not His case.

Next we have this, from yesterday:

Did Galileo retract heliocentrism before his death?
By Andrew Sibley | Published 18 Mar, 2026
https://creation.com/en/articles/did-galileo-retract

A certain debate before Urban VIII became Pope, before Galileo was judged in 1633, involved the argument:

God could make the universe anyway He wanted. God could also make the universe look to us anyway He wanted.

Galileo made fun of it, leading to the 1633 trial, but my hope for his souls is, by 1641, it had sunk in.

You see, it doesn't mean God is dishonest or morally free to be a liar. It means that God by omnipotence would have had the physical capacity to perform a deception, had He wanted to. Given that the universe looks Geocentric, the options are:

• God made a Geocentric universe, and because He is truthful, He made it look Geocentric to us.
• God made a Heliocentric universe, but somehow, He made it look Geocentric to us.

So, Geocentrism being true corresponds to God being truthful. Even apart from Joshua 10 with parallell references. Do you know how Galileo dealt with the Bible, by the way? I'll give another citation from his letter to Grand Duchess Cristina first:

Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany
Stanford University
https://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/certainty/readings/Galileo-LetterDuchessChristina.pdf

Persisting in their original resolve to destroy me and everything mine by any means they can think of, these men are aware of my views in astronomy and philosophy. They know that as to the arrangement of the parts of the universe, I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth revolves about the sun. They know also that I support this position not only by refuting the arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments; in particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes can perhaps be assigned in no other way.

Mainly, the physical effects in the sky as visible to us can be assigned by the Tychonian orbits, and the view on tides is erroneous, and was seen as erroneous by one of the people judging either his book in 1616 or his own position in 1633. He was from Portugal and had seen tides with his own eyes. But, this letter also deals with the Bible.

They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even in purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense.

Oops, can you spell out "non-overlapping magisteria" ? Leading evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, dies, CMI was against it.

So, how does Sibley view the words of Galileo from 1641, if indeed from him, which he also threw doubt on? Back to the article Did Galileo retract heliocentrism before his death? It's no longer Galileo writing to Grand Duchess Cristina, it's the correspondence from 1641.

So, in context, Galileo wrote with ironic humour in merely expressing the judgement of the authorities. This was his opening statement:

“The falsity of the Copernican system must not be doubted at all, especially by us Catholics, who have the irrefutable authority of the sacred scriptures, interpreted by the greatest masters of theology.”

Sibley is somewhat at a loss on what "the authorities" means to a Catholic.

Now, it is unfortunately possible that Galileo saw himself as free from Catholic authority in physics, like he saw himself free from Biblical authority in physics. But in matters where the Bible binds, even on his view, so does the authority of the Church. The one possibility of his not being sincere is the idea that the question fell outside the Bible and the Church, because wasn't in the least revealed or co-revealed. (I more hold it as co-revealed than as revealed: "lions prowl seeking prey" is similarily not a mystery of faith, but confirmed as true by the faith, and in that same sense co-revealed.) For whatever falls in the scope of revelation, Galileo was well aware of this:

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
[Luke 10:16]

But there is a somewhat ludicrous turn of events in Sibley's analysis:

Later in the letter, he expressed the view that, although he considered the Copernican observations to be in incomplete, he thought the alternative views were more in error. He wrote:

“And just as I consider the Copernican observations and conjectures insufficient, I equally consider those of Ptolemy, Aristotle and their followers to be more fallacious and erroneous.”

Rejecting Ptolemy and Aristotle was by now not the least synonymous to rejecting all the alternative views. The words of Galileo don't spell out any rejection of Tycho Brahe or of Riccioli. And the 1633 didn't hold him to staying with Aristotle or Ptolemy, it is quite compatible with accepting Tycho.

At the time of writing, the Copernican system was not fully confirmed by scientific observation, and so the postulations were indeed insufficiently validated at that time. And yet, Galileo considered the geocentric Ptolemaic and Aristotelian views to be in greater error.

The Copernican system is by now fully refuted. You see, it involves the fix stars forming so to speak "one shell" ... if we were to accept that the 1838 Bessel phenomenon were due to the optic effect called parallax (the train ride illusion, when you see hills and trees and houses rush by), this would place stars at vastly different distances from us, and by now even involve the Distant Starlight Problem. If the fix stars do form one shell, then the 1838 phenomenon isn't parallactic, even if it's called parallax from being analysed as such, and then presumably Earth isn't moving.

You may have meant that the Heliocentric system was not fully confirmed. It still isn't. As to the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian views, Galileo may have been basking in his glory from having refuted them on other topics than their Geocentrism, as indeed he had.

And even if he did, it would be fallacious to suggest that it affected the truth or otherwise regarding the question of geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

The retraction as such would not affect the question, but some arguments would. Like the one I saw in Sungenis' material, about God being able to create the universe anyway He liked and make it look anyway He liked. However, the retraction would be of interest to those concerned with Galileo's eternal soul.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Joseph
19.III.2026

In Judaea natalis sancti Joseph, Sponsi beatissimae Virginis Mariae, Confessoris; quem Pius Nonus, Pontifex Maximus, votis et precibus annuens totius catholici Orbis, universalis Ecclesiae Patronum declaravit.

Side note:

Beside a video by Sungenis, I saw this question in the chat:

QUESTION: Under geocentrism, is there a naturalistic explanation for the movement of the Sun around the earth that creates the seasons?

For St. Thomas, it worked like this: a) God moves everything from fix stars down to oceanic currents West each day, and the Sun along with it, b) meanwhile, the angel of the Sun is moving it along the Zodiac, around another axis than the one of the daily motion, and that circle is giving sometimes at Equator, sometimes South of it (in December) and sometimes North of it (in June)./HGL

Two Points Against non-Geocentrics in Creation Ministries International

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Keaton Halley Misses a Beat · Creation vs. Evolution: Two Points Against non-Geocentrics in Creation Ministries International

Yet we were generally accused of mistakenly calling the Tychonian system a kinematic model, instead of a dynamic model. But Tycho Brahe’s system is absolutely a kinematic model (it only describes motion, not the reason for the motion). It is a mathematical system that attempted to explain the then-available data, but did so without physics. It is simply not true to assert otherwise.

True.

However, Riccioli, who wrote an astronomic text book about the Tychonian Universe, called Novum Organum, did discuss the reason for the movement. He presented it as four distinct options before settling for one (a common procedure among theologians at the time, like St. Robert Bellarmine on a heretical Pope says "Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church." ... he has discussed the four other options first, one of them being the absurd one that a Pope ceases to be Pope even at purely interior heresy, which is absurd because an interior and not outwardly expressed heresy would leave the Church at a loss as to whether the man were Pope, since nothing outwardly seemed to barr this). Note, this discussion is about individual celestial bodies, not about Heaven as a whole.

1) Direct action of God.
2) A created but purely mechanical cause, like Kepler suggesting magnetism.
3) Celestial bodies are alive and move by themselves.
4) Angels move them.

He rejected direct action by God, because God creates things so they may be causes, and therefore leaves a lot of things to be caused not directly by Himself, but by a created factor. This leaves the other three options, since mechanics, biology (or quasi-biology) and angels are all created factors.

He rejected a purely mechanical cause, because Celestial bodies are between us and God's Heaven, the Empyraean Heaven over the Fix Stars where God has His throne and throne room. Such things should have a nobler cause.

I think he rejected celestial beings being biological or quasibiological for that reason, that's not as noble as spiritual, but one could add that St. Thomas thought this option totally refuted by the absence of observed changes in the objects (not sure if NASA would today agree with that view when viewing protuberances).

This leaves the fourth view, it is consistent with Scripture — angels are called "morning stars" in Job 38:7, Sun, Moon and Stars are enumerated in Daniel 3:62—63 in a larger list starting with angels in verse 58 down to the just who in Sheol were waiting for Jesus to descend (which the Good Thief didn't need to wait for, Jesus had died before he was killed by breaking of leg bones) in verses 86,87. It is also the opinion of an overwhelming number of approved theologians, Coimbra Jesuits (welcomed in 1542, banned in 1759 by Pombal), Suarez, St. Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Lyra (Bible commentator), Nicolas of Cusa and lots more.

So, while the Tychonian view didn't come with an automatic mechanism attached, it also didn't lack a mechanism, that was simply a separate question, given to theologian or philosopher rather than to astronomer as such. Riccioli being a Jesuit priest felt more comfortable handling these questions than Tycho would have been.

Today, we accept a “geokinetic” (moving-earth) view based on the work of Newton and Einstein. For the student of history and/or science, how we came to the modern view is an amazing exploration of how things work and a testimony to the amazing ability to reason that God uniquely put into people.

We live in a created universe, meaning its existence did not come about through naturalistic processes alone. We also live in a well-ordered universe; meaning it behaves according to a set of rules.

However, physics and biology are not the only processes that God governs by law.

He can govern His own direct acts by law — which I think He does every day in moving Heaven as a whole (question previous to above in Novum Organum, and Riccioli was against the opinion I and Thomas hold in common). He can govern the actions of angels by law. For instance, if St. Michael wants to fight Satan over the body of Moses, it's probably out of obedience, and he shows a certain decorum in not reviling even the devil. Or, if the angel who takes the Sun around ... us each day (Riccioli) or the Zodiac each year (Thomas Aquinas and I) wants to show mourning over God being crucified by His creatures, He certainly doesn't do so wilfully, but either asked permission or was given an order by his Creator and Lord.

Therefore, the angelic view, which is the most standard mechanism for a normal Tychonian system, actually does fall within the theological desiderata directly mentioned.

Unfortunately, CMI also voiced this: "We live in a created universe, meaning its existence did not come about through naturalistic processes alone." The problem is, it presupposes a watchmaker God. A God whose divine action sets the universe going and into existance, but where divine interference after that is exceptional.

Paley would not have found a fan in St. Thomas who considered the universe as comparable to an instrument that God first makes as an instrument maker and then plays as a musician.

And what did St. Paul say? Allow me to make numbered underscores in a famous passage from Romans.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven (1) against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world (2), are clearly seen (3), being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also (4), and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]

1 — we see and they saw it in heaven, i e in the sky.
2 — what is seen did not need geographical discoveries like the Americas or microscope or telescope, but could always be seen
3 — by the naked eye if we aren't totally forgetful of what we are watching
4 — and it's a thing (perhaps among others) where God shows off working every day without any fatigue

God turning the universe around us each day fits all these criteria. However, in the previous question Riccioli posed, he unfortunately denied this. He considered Heaven as a whole is not moved. The historic reason is, to St. Thomas, God was turning the star sphere around us each 23 h 56 min or whatever, this sphere then touches the sphere of Saturn, the sphere of Saturn that of Jupiter, that of Mars, that of the Sun, that of Venus, that of Mercury, that of the Moon and then the atmosphere and then this touches the waters. Tycho refuted the idea of solid spheres, because he proved a comet was not a meteorological but an astronomical phenomenon, it's not in the airs, it's between planets. If I resume the idea God is turning the visible universe (below Empyrean and above Earth) around us each day, I need another mechanism for transmission, and if I have it, Riccioli didn't. However, he considered Thomas' Prima Via as having this meaning.

My own mechanism is, every piece of bodily creation is "bathing" in a substance I'd call aether, which is continuous, not discrete, so, not particles. It's the medium of space (which is why a star moving around us in 23 h 56 min doesn't need to go through the aether in 6.28 times the speed of light, it just follows along the movement of the aether), of light (so, light is waves) and of vectors (which is why Geostationary satellites work: holding a position straight above a fixed place on earth means they have a momentum Eastward through an aether moving Westward). The portion above Earth and below stars behaves like a solid ball that can be moved around, whatever place on it you move around the axis, the other places move along. So, God can do that. When we see a sunrise or a sunset, we see God at work, even on the Sabbath, as Jesus recalled after curing a lame.

A miracle, then, isn't God doing more in His creation than He usually does, but doing it differently from usual, either so we can see it (when He obeyed Joshua and stopped the daily movement Westward for the time of about a day) or instructing us to believe it (when He instructs us to believe He turns bread and wine into His flesh and blood, even if it doesn't show, or a sinner into a saint, at Baptism or Confession).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Roman, Abbott
28.II.2026

In territorio Lugdunensi, locis Jurensibus, depositio sancti Romani Abbatis, qui primus illic eremiticam vitam duxit, et, multis virtutibus ac miraculis clarus, plurimorum postea Pater exstitit Monachorum.

Resources by CMI I commented on:

Refuting absolute geocentrism
By Dr Robert Carter | Published 27 Aug, 2015 | Updated 06 Sep, 2016
https://creation.com/en/articles/refuting-geocentrism-response

Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
By Dr Robert Carter, Dr Jonathan Sarfati | Published 12 Feb, 2015
https://creation.com/en/articles/refuting-absolute-geocentrism

Resources I've used:

1) Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748

Next page : 248
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/141308

2) Memory of a previous or subsequent chapter about heaven as a whole.

3) My translation of relevant passages is available here:

What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
Thursday, 28 August 2014 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 17:24
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

4) Nearly forgot, an online resource by CMRI, meant to prove "Popes" who think Muslims or Jews worship the true God are not Popes (and I'd add, neither are Evolutionists) by referring to a Latin text by St. Robert Bellarmine:

Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen: St. Robert Bellarmine: What if a Pope [were] to Become a Heretic
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-roman-pontiff/

They think we haven't had a Pope since 1958, I that we have had Popes with a one year break, again, since 1990, Popes Michael I and II.

Responding to Jonathan Sarfati

CMI: What about bad things done by the Church?
By Dr Jonathan Sarfati | Published 23 Apr, 2014
https://creation.com/en/articles/bad-things-by-church

I highly appreciate putting Breivik in his right category by quoting him:

“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”

Footnoted:

See also Bergman, J., “Anders Breivik—Social Darwinism leads to mass murder”, J. Creation 26(1):48–53, 2012; Sarfati, J., Norway terrorist: more media mendacity; creation.com/breivik, 11 August 2011.

Not the least because as an avowed Fundie (as the word is used it covers a combination of Biblical creationism and opposition to abortion, and dito for a Catholic stating yes to 4 of the 5 "fundamentals" from back then, we have a different view of the atonement), I have come, here in France, under attack pretty directly after Breivik's deed and the Norwegian misreport about him.

I will not quibble against what's said about the Crusades, wars overall, or the role of Islam in religious wars. The section on the Salem Witch Trials was not bad, as a Catholic I can point to the Inquisitor who ended witch burnings by 1620 by asking the question if a witch's memory of imagined meetings with Satan is a valid confession of an actual compact (he concluded to the negative).

IRA

The two exceptions would be IRA and the Inquisition. As to the 1970's IRA in Northern Ireland, this is correct. However, it is heir to an IRA that was active in 1916 and between 1919 and 1921. Catholics within it were under excommunication, but they were Catholics. Éamon de Valera hoped that God would forgive his sins later, or perhaps the excommunication was only valid for military action within it. Well, Richard Mulcahy was a military leader and a Catholic. And presumably hoped, God would forgive his sins later. Not meaning they counted actions of war as per se sinful, but we tend to sin and sometimes do sin mortally, and if absolution isn't available now, we have the choice between putting off confession or leaving the worldly business that fell under excommunication.

Inquisition.

I wouldn't say that the Inquisition as such was a blot on the Church. I would say the Spanish Inquisition was at a certain period (before sometime in the 17th C) something of a blot on the Inquisition. Because, that institution was meant to track heresy, not to punish Catholics for enjoying pastrami more than pork in reference to past generations. Well, to be perfectly candid, they didn't require a full reset of the menu, but they would require eating pork once out of obedience. To prove they did not consider the kashrut as binding on a Christian.

A worse blot on the Inquisition was the English one.* While St. Joan of Arc was tried in what's now France, she was tried under what was then English law, the one of 1401 De heretico comburendo. I think this is important to recall when it comes to the judgement of her voices, since English Catholicism at this point was even against Lollards on a point like laymen reading the Bible. Not that Catholicism requires every Christian, even a layman to read the Bible or even overall recommends it, but it's specific to certain contexts when that fact in and of itself can be seen as a sign of heresy. Obviously there were other points where the Lollards were actually bad and should be opposed, and back then even persecuted, to delay the Great Apostasy, but this over caution shows a lack of charity that's not typical of even the Inquisition procedures in France (where at a certain point Inquisitors were told, "no, you can't keep those Waldensians to convert them, we can't afford it, let them go!" and where Inquisition procedures against Waldensianism were replaced with social pressure, under Lewis XI if I recall rightly).

Now, as I described the goal of the Inquisition as "to delay the Great Apostasy" I'd better back it up.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

S. Th. II—II, Question 11. Heresy
Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3

Note that the St. Jerome quote says "expel" ... the previous paragraph on what the heretics merit, ends in "to be not only excommunicated but even put to death." Not necessarily that there is only two steps to the scale, excommunication only or excommunication plus execution. There can be several steps in between, like social pressure (see what the 15th C. France did about Waldensians) or exile (a favourite with Byzantium). When English say that William Penn's uncle was executed or menaced with execution in Spain for disbelief in the Eucharist, the problem is, as an Englishman it is way more probable he would have been simply expelled.** Dito with Russian claims that Peter the Aleut while vititing California was offered communion in unleavened bread, rejected it because he thought only leavened bread was valid matter, and was executed in a manner ressembling the martyrdom of one James of Persia, to which his mentor Hermann of Alaska was devoted. To top this, by Jesuit Inquisitors.*** First, as a foreigner he would have been expelled. Second, denying that unleavened bread is valid matter in the Latin rite is a far lesser offense than denying the Eucharist and the Real Presence, and third, dismembering limb by limb was never an execution method of the Inquisition and Jesuits were never Inquisitors.

Now, I think the Great Apostasy has basically already happened, beginning with the Reformation (or more correct spelling D-), culminating in Communism. 1517 Luther, 1717 Desaguyliers and Anderson, 1917, Lenin. Most countries with Catholics already include too many non-believers (heretics or atheists) to repress them and where this is least so, the country is also least capable of taking such a measure without having to fear international intervention. Today, the Inquisition would be basically useless or worse. This doesn't mean I will condemn what it did, back in its day, except exceptions. I can understand that with Jonathan Sarfati's family background he's not the hugest fan of the Spanish Inquisition. But, like the English, it was partly political and included things which weren't standard in what the Inquisition is normally supposed to be, meaning from the back then Catholic motivations for it.

Concluding.

Jonathan Sarfati's article is mostly good. I think I'm not wrong to recommend it. To some, neither his article nor mine is likely to satisfy that Jesus is the Messiah, because they think that person would ussher in an era of a perfect and peaceful society at all levels of human activity on earth (and not just at a second coming, but immediately). I'd say that is misreading the prophecies. Those saying Judah and Ephraim would disarm and no longer make war with each other have been fulfilled in the 2000-year old history of Christian Palestinians (best Christmas wishes to Bethlehem!), starting in Acts 2 and 8, those saying the Lord's word of peace would go out to the nations have been fulfilled in Christian missions, the word did go out, and the prophecy didn't say everyone would obey it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of the Immaculate Conception
15.XII.2025

* "A custody battle ensued, during which the University of Paris played a key role in arranging Joan's transfer from the Burgundians to the English at Rouen for trial." p. 5, The Trial of Joan of Arc, translated and introduced by Daniel Hobbins, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts / London, England, 2005. [p. 5 is obviously still in the introduction] "et Jehanne la bonne lorraine, qu'anglois brulèrent à Rouen" (François Villon, Ballade des Dames du temps jadis). Wikipedia article Trial of Joan of Arc features "Joan of Arc is interrogated by The Cardinal of Winchester in her prison, 1431. Painting by Paul Delaroche (1797–1856), Musée des Beaux-Arts de Rouen." The Cardinal of Winchester in question being Henry Beaufort. Even if he was not active in the trial, as some assert, the fact that her main judge was a local bishop, Cauchon, et typical of the English Inquisition. In the Spanish Inquisition of Spanish Netherlands, involved in getting Tyndale to the stake, the inquisitor Latomus was not the local bishop, and he was very careful to state heresy only after allowing Tyndale to state his views on justification (like the main historic Reformers, basically a free grace gospel). That he was killed for translating the Bible to English is a lying attempt to paint him as a "martyr for the Bible" ...

** Can't find the reference right now. Not even what his name was.

*** Search the names on Orthodox Wiki.

Disagreeing with CMI on Two Items of Biblical History

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Disagreeing with CMI · Creation vs. Evolution: Disagreeing with CMI on Two Items of Biblical History

I agree on the principle in Biblical history and the role of science by Jonathan Sarfati from 2011.

Earth is about 6,000 years old, since Jesus said mankind was there from the ‘beginning of creation’, not billions of years later (Mark 10:6).

This is proof of Biblical chronology, not necessarily Masoretic chronology. I consider Genesis 5 and 11 should have LXX text family readings for chronological purposes, and that Earth is a bit more than 7200 years old.

God then judged the people by confusing their language at Babel—after they had refused to spread out and repopulate the Earth after the Flood (Genesis 10:25; 11:1–9).

This presumes that there was no spread prior to Babel. I would say there was spread, but political and cultural unity. The dispersion meant the élite could no longer band together in one place, not that men in general had previously done so, after the Flood.

I would also not consider that the subject "all the earth" (feminine singular) is identic to the subject "they" (forms for masculine plural) between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 11.

Genesis 11:1 is a closing remark to table of nations, since "according to their languages" had been mentioned, remarking that this split of languages hadn't occurred yet when the table is mainly from. This means that "they" can be distinct from "all the earth" and be a far less numerous élite. Once post-Babel cities of Nimrod's empire and Peleg were added to the table, the verse became a transition to the Genesis 11 story./HGL

Somestimes CMI Are Just Wrong, on Theology

Rainbows, the Flood, and the Covenant
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Creation 38(4):44–45, October 2016
https://creation.com/rainbows-and-the-flood

Most of the article is correct on Creation Science and Exegetics that Rainbows existed before the Flood. See the Haydock comment on Genesis 9.

13 I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me and between the earth.

Ver. 13. My rain bow. This had been from the beginning; but it was not before appointed for a sign that the earth should no more be destroyed by water. It is styled God’s bow, on account of its beauty and grandeur. (Menochius) (Ecclesiasticus xliii. 12.) — “As the rain-bow, which makes its appearance in the clouds, borrows all its effulgence from the sun, so those only who acknowledge the glory of Christ in God’s clouds, and do not seek their own glory, will escape destruction in the deluge,” St. Augustine, contra Faust. ii. 21.

The cited Giovanni Stefano Menochio SJ (9 December 1575 – 4 February 1655) was an Italian Jesuit biblical scholar. Perfectly orthodox, and so it is perfectly OK for a Catholic to say that there were rainbows before the Flood.

However, Jonathan Sarfati pretends that in Matthew 26:26 ff. Jesus left bread and wine as they were and only added a new signification. Given the multiplication of breads and the miracle in Cana, why would He do no more, like actually make it His body and His blood? Because the Deformers say so? No, let's stick with the Church, shall we, over the centuries!/HGL

Correction to Jonathan Sarfati

Since then, those languages have divided much further. For example, English, French, German, Icelandic, Greek, Russian, Hindi, Persian, and many others can all be traced back to one ancestral language. This language is called “Proto-Indo-European” (PIE). PIE might have been one of the languages God created at Babel. But Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian did not come from PIE. Rather, they came from an ancestral language called Proto-Uralic, maybe another Babel language.

From tomorrow's page on CMI, The Genesis Flood for Kids | Noah’s descendants

French, Spanish, Italian can all be literally traced back to Latin. When in around 800 in Tours Latin started to get a more oldfashioned pronunciation, closer to the letters, the Latin writing was no longer the default spelling of the vernacular language. Within a century, French appeared as very archaic Old French.* Classic Old French is a bit younger.**

In a council in Burgos, the Frankish way of pronouncing Latin was adopted, mid-11th C. and soon enough after that, 1200, you find Old Spanish.*** For Italy I'm not sure of the exact time when Frankish pronunciation trumped the close to Italian one (without nasals at all in -um, pronouncing it like -o), but as Italian is even closer to Latin than Spanish and French are, it is very clear that Italian too stems from Latin. On top of that, there is no record of Latin ever being replaced with an actual foreign language, at any point, so one is very safe to assume that what language Sicilian poets like Giacomo da Lentini or Tuscan poets like Dante wrote was actually a later form of what Horace or Virgil had written.

In this sense, we cannot trace any "branch of Indo-European" or anything at all to "Proto-Indo-European".

One of the reasons that Indo-European languages are supposed to all descend from Proto-Indo-European is verbal endings. You'll be familiar with the Greek ones, no doubt. Now, look at the Finnish endings as well:

μῑσέω		ἐμίσεον		minä vihaan
μῑσέεις		ἐμίσεες		sinä vihaat
μῑσέει		ἐμίσεε		hän vihaa
(μῑσέετον μῑσέετον)		(ἐμῑσέετον ἐμῑσεέτην)
μῑσέομεν		ἐμῑσέομεν		me vihaamme
μῑσέετε		ἐμῑσέετε		te vihaatte
μῑσέουσῐ		ἐμίσεον		he vihaavat

Finnish is not Indo-European, it's Uralic. Was Nostratic, hypothetic ancestor of both Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic, one post-Babel language? Or did some Sprachbund phenomenon influence the common endings between Finnish and Greek? If the latter, could that, on a larger and more intense scale, be the cause of similarities between the several "branches of Indo-European"? Because, if it could, then Greek could be descended from Javanic, the post-Babel language of Javan, son of Japheth. And Hittite with Celtic, Italic (of which Latin and later Romance) and Germanic, could be Gomerite.°

There would have been more than one early and somewhat later occasions for language contact, like when Gomer and Semitic Lud were in Anatolia, Javan was just across the Aegean, or in the 1200's BC, according to archaeologists, the Villanova culture was both influenced by Mycenaean Greeks and in trade contacts all the way up to Denmark from Italy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Walburgis
25.II.2025

In monasterio Heidenhemii, dioecesis Eystettensis, in Germania, sanctae Walburgae Virginis, quae fuit filia sancti Richardi, Anglorum Regis, et soror sancti Willebaldi, Eystettensis Episcopi.

PS, enumerating the similarities. First person singular is -n in Finnish, -n in Secondary Endings of Greek. Second person singular ends in a dental. Third person singular ends in a long vowel (in present tense in Greek). First person plural ends in -me (-men in Attic and Koiné, -mes in Doric), and in -mme. Second person plural ends in -te / -tte. If I had taken in Latin, I'd have compared "-nt" to Finnish "at", though the preceding -v- is not obviously related to anything in Indo-European, as to third person plural./HGL

* Maybe Strassburg Oaths, certainly the Saint Eulalia Sequence.
** Song of Roland.
*** El Cantar del Mio Cid.
° Church Fathers have traced both Gauls and Cappadocians to Gomer, and it would seem Italic and Germanic are closely related. Old Irish shares grammatic features with Hittite.

Sharing Dr. Sarfati's Observation on Australian Rabbits

Lessons from Australia’s rabbit plague
by Jonathan Sarfati
https://creation.com/australias-rabbit-plague-lessons

Contains answers to:

• How can we be so many if we descend from only 8 people?
• How could we avoid dangerous inbreeding if we descend from only 8 people?
• How did animals get to Australia from the Ararat Mountains?
• What did John Malthus get wrong?

I wish I had written it, but as it is, I can just warmly recommend it!
/HGL

PS, I can improve on one thing, making the links to Dr. Carter's podcasts on Biblical Genetics clickable:

Biblical Bottlenecks are not Bad
May 27, 2020 | Uncategorized
https://biblicalgenetics.com/biblical-bottlenecks-are-not-bad/

Evolutionary Bottlenecks are Disastrous
Jun 2, 2020 | Uncategorized
https://biblicalgenetics.com/evolutionary-bottlenecks-are-disastrous/

PPS, this one's also excellent:

Could humans take down mammoths with spears?
by Michael J. Oard | This article is from
Journal of Creation 37(3):13–15, December 2023
https://creation.com/humans-spear-mammoths

CMI really does far more good in the area of Creation Science than one could fear in terms of harm by Protestantism. Otherwise, I wouldn't promote it./HGL

LXX / Vetus Latina as per Julius Africanus : Pre-Flood Period 2262 Years

In other words, there is no problem of where Methuselah was when the Flood came — he was already dead.

The following table also takes into account the overlapping of the generations, after each it is marked who were living in their lifespans (in some cases, the overlap is only for a few years of the younger one's life, but that's rare).

Adam	1 — 930	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel
Seth	230 — 1142	Adam Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch
Enos	435 — 1340	Adam Seth Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala
Cainan	625 — 1535	Adam Seth Enos Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech
Maleleel	795 — 1690	Adam Seth Enos Cainan Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe
Jared	960 — 1922	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe
Enoch	1122 — 1487	Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech
Mathusala	1287 — 2256	Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Lamech Noe Sem
__________________________________________
Lamech	1454 — 2207	Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Noe Sem
Noe	1642 — 2592	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem
Sem, Ham, Japheth	2142	Mathusala Lamech Noe
Flood,	2242	Mathusala!
__________________________________________
Lamech	1474 — 2227	Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Noe Sem
Noe	1662 — 2612	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Heber
Sem, Ham, Japheth	2162	Mathusala Lamech Noe Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Phaleg
Flood,	2262

Is there a specific reason to believe the reading of Julius Africanus is correct? Check out this one:

Dating Methuselah's Death: Pre or Post Flood? with Henry B. Smith Jr.
Associates for Biblical Research | 8 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwPmoxrK04

Flood,	2262
Noah	pre-Flood — 350	1662 — 2612	Maleleel Jared Mathusala Lamech Sem Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala | Heber
Sem	pre-Flood — 502	2164 — 2764	Mathusala Lamech Noe Arphaxad [(II) Cainan] Sala Heber | Phaleg
Arphaxad	2 — 537	2264 — 2799	Noe Sem [(II) Cainan] Sala Heber Phaleg | Ragau
__________________________________________
(II) Cainan	137 — 597	2399 — 2859	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Ragau
Sala	267 — 727	2529 — 2989	Noe Sem Arphaxad (II) Cainan Heber Phaleg Ragau
Heber	397 — 801	2659 — 3063	Sem Arphaxad (II) Cainan Sala Phaleg Ragau Seruch
Phaleg	531 — 870	2793 — 3132	Arphaxad (II) Cainan Sala Heber Ragau Seruch
Ragau	661 — 1000	2923 — 3262	Sala Heber Phaleg Seruch Nachor
Seruch	793 — 1123	3055 — 3385	Heber Phaleg Ragau Nachor Thara
Nachor	923 — 1227	3185 — 3489	Ragau Seruch Nachor Thara
Thara	1102 — 1307 / 1377 + ?	3364 — 3569 / 3639 + ?	Seruch Nachor Thara
Abram, Nachor and Arrhan	1172	3434	Nachor Thara
__________________________________________
Sala	137 — 597	2399 — 2859	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Ragau
Heber	267 — 671	2529 — 2933	Noe Sem Arphaxad Sala Phaleg Ragau Seruch
Phaleg	401 — 740	2663 — 3002	Sem Arphaxad Sala Heber Ragau Seruch
Ragau	531 — 870	2793 — 3132	Arphaxad Sala Heber Phaleg Seruch Nachor
Seruch	663 — 993	2925 — 3255	Heber Phaleg Ragau Nachor Thara
Nachor	793 — 997 ? / 1097 ?	3055 — 3259 ? / 3359 ?	Ragau Seruch Thara
Thara	872 — 1075 / 1145 + ?	3134 — 3337 / 3407 + ?	Seruch Nachor
Abram, Nachor and Arrhan	942	3204	Seruch Nachor Thara

There are two discrepancies between the standard version of the LXX and the one involved in the Roman Martyrology. That one has no Second (II) Cainan and Nachor begets at 79 rather than 179. I think both are textually attested in manuscripts we have, but even if this were not the case, patristic witness to this version would be sufficient, and we have that insofar that Julius Africanus, whose work is the basis of the Roman Martyrology as to distance between Creation, Flood and Birth of Abraham (except St. Jerome "corrected" the first distance from 2262 to 2242) gives as the latter distance, not 1172 or 1072, as per with a (II) Cainan, and also not 1042, as per without him, but with Nachor begetting Thara at 179, but 942, as per no (II) Cainan and as per Nachor begetting Thara at 79.

These details can be found here, under the pen of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:

Biblical chronogenealogies
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Journal of Creation 17(3):14–18, December 2003
https://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies

Obviously, this allows Abraham to have spoken to Seruch, who, in Josue 24:2, unlike possibly his son Nachor, certainly his grandson Thara, is not mentioned as an idolater. Abraham had access to pure doctrine and to the historical traditions as preserved within pure doctrine, including in the LXX chronology.

I think someone may have prayed over my getting confronted with this problem of Methuselah's "remaining years after the Flood" in the LXX, and perhaps also reconfronted with the quip, very popular among "Catholic" clergy in Paris, that Abraham was born into a family of idolaters, so that, whatever he received as traditions from the family would have to be "pagan mythology" by definition.

Even if that had been true, it would not have automatically made the traditions historically incorrect. St. Augustine respects the tradition on how Rome was founded and only in theology (about the origin of Romulus) markedly differs from the worshippers of Mars and of Romulus. We also tend to accept as historical the life of Siddharta Gautama, and differ from Buddhists only in theology (including but not limited to this man's supposed pre-existences in previous reincarnations). But, as said, it is not even true. However, some clergy over here would probably be in their 90's and struck by Alzheimer be incapable of taking my replies into account, nevertheless, they are for some reason allowed to guide younger people with healthier minds about what to say about my Young Earth Creationist position. I heard this objection 10 years ago, or more. I answered it pretty quickly too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Dominica in Albis
7.IV.2024

Disagreeing with Sarfati on Two Items

First, the* quote:

At the peak, the Flood covered the highest mountains to 15 cubits deep (about 7 metres or 22.5 feet). The Ark was safe because it sank only about ten cubits into the water—a third of its height.

Two statements here are not in my model of Flood and Ark.

1) He thinks the waterline was 10 cubits up, I think it was 15 cubits up. Or maybe 14 or 14 and a half.
2) He thinks "15 cubits above the very high mountains / the highest mountains" was the peak of the Flood, I think this was what Noah could know of, but not necessarily the peak.

Let's give my reasons.

1) I think a waterline halfway up the ship or in this case non-navigating vessel makes for better stability. (More mundanely, I used that waterline in my calculation of the rolling period.)
2) I think Noah either by prophecy of by calculation of weights could know the waterline was 15 cubits up or 14 and a half, and so he knew this was how much the water was higher than the flat mountain top where he had built the Ark. It does not state that at this moment the water had reached its peak, and need not imply that if "The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered" means "at least 15 cubits" rather than "at most 15 cubits" ...

Genesis 7:20 describes the moment when they cease waiting in an immobile Ark and they feel that the ark starts moving. Or it starts even previous verse. 19 And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

If the waterline was 14 and a half cubits up, Noah calculated one half cubit of water below the bottom of the Ark (there was no keel) was what the Ark needed to float free from the mountain top. Once they were off, they were in deep water, which would not make very turbulent, though certainly big, waves. A thing I and** Sarfati agree on, see his fact box with the kitten in an umbrella holding a paddle. As we do*** on non-existance of Mount Everest before the Flood, see his three sentences after the one I quoted.

The reason I take Genesis 7:19—20 to describe the actual take-off of the Ark is, if the Ark had been floating earlier, it would have risked colliding with the mountains. Now, there is an item where he and I both agree and disagree. Why God sent the Flood. Genesis 6:11 And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. Now, he, following KJV saying "violence" thinks this refers to a chaos of perpetual warfare, as would inhibit technology by leaving no one able to figure things out. I think the iniquity was closer to Communist China's social credit score./HGL

* The Genesis Flood for kids: The flood peaks
by Jonathan Sarfati | Published in Creation 46(2):32–35, 2024
https://creation.com/the-flood-peaks-cfk

** See also: HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: He did some answering, though, to others ... · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Oceanic Deep Water Waves in Whole Gale : Whitecaps on a Lake, But Bigger

*** See also: Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

CMI Weakness : "It's not in X, it's in Y"

Example* from today:

Now Plimer is notoriously unreliable (see Plimer Files), and here he claimed that Vilna is in Poland when it’s in Lithuania, and seemed to be unaware that pi is an irrational number, so I don’t take his word for things.

I have no idea on whether Plimer denied that pi is an irrational ratio, but if he said "Vilna is in Poland" that's not simply false and unreliable.

Back in the time when Gedimynas founded Vilnius, it was in Lithuania. Now it is in Lithuania. After the three partitions, it was in Russia, as in Russian Empire. Between 1945 (or subsequent years) and 1990, it was in the Soviet Republic of Lithuania. At a certain point during World War II, it had been under German occupation, except for a very brief interval 1939 to 1940 when it was under Lithuania. The same is true for World War I.

What was it between World War I and World War II?

On 20 February 1922, after the highly contested election in Central Lithuania, the entire area was annexed by Poland, with the city becoming the capital of the Wilno Voivodeship (Wilno being the name of Vilnius in Polish). Kaunas became the temporary capital of Lithuania. ... By 1931, the city had 195,000 inhabitants, making it the fifth largest city in Poland with varied industries, such as Elektrit, a factory that produced radio receivers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius#Interwar_Poland

Are they among the guys who say things like "Göbekli Tepe is not in Mesopotamia, it's in Turkey"?

I actually fear so!/HGL

(While it's not visible on the map, the sources of both rivers are actually 38° N and some more, while Göbekli Tepe, East of Euphrates, is 37° N and some more, short of 38° N.)

* https://creation.com/bible-contradiction-claims

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.

Reference Needed, Mister Sarfati!

Galileo Quadricentennial
Myth vs fact, by Jonathan Sarfati
https://creation.com/the-galileo-affair-refuting-the-falsehoods

Unfortunately, Galileo was largely a victim of his own arrogance and insulting writing style, as well as his unfortunate friendships. Galileo was once a close friend of Maffeo Barberini, the future Pope Urban VIII (1568–1644), who was a great admirer of this work, and shared his high self-opinion. But this mutual adulation came to a bitter end when Galileo wrote his classic 1632 book, The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo). This was an imagined debate about the geocentric v geokinetic systems. The former was defended by the character “Simplicio”, who was made to look foolish, and Urban recognized his own arguments in Simplicio’s mouth. Urban was outraged at the seeming betrayal by his close friend, and he was the one who initiated the trial while the Inquisitors were apparently indifferent.

Two problems with the part I emphasised:

1. you give no source
2. Simplicio was not named Urban VIII, he was not named Maffeo, he was not named Barberini - his own memories of using the same argument with Galileo were memories of private conversations not known by all of the Catholic world - Urban VIII would have been quite an incompetent idiot to be furious about it and make a big scene because of that.

For another claim, the opposite reference is actually available.

Unfortunately, the church was led astray by the scientific establishment, so tried to read the then current model into Scripture, although, as shown below, the Bible doesn’t teach it.

Here are a few reasons against this:

• the ones giving an alarm against geokinetism were some Dominican disgruntled at seeing certain Bible passages mangled by Foscarini and Galileo, let's name Tommaso Caccini and Niccolò Lorini, and while their friend Lodovico delle Colombe was a layman and Aristotelian philosopher, his brother Raffaelo delle Colombe was another Dominican;
• the book of Joshua (chapter 10) is explicitly mentioned;
• even if verse 13 could admit an interpretation as phenomenological language, this goes against verse 12, where otherwise we would for the sole time have a miracle worker obtain the desired practical effect while being mistaken about what he physically commanded - it's as if Jesus had healed purely soul-internal mental illnesses while thinking he ejected demons;
• while the consideration inspired by what I know progressive Lutherans in the late 19th C. made out of a "theory of accomodation" was absent to the Dominicans, the fact is, the geokinetic reading is the less intuitive or plain reading of verse 13 and untraditional (Trent Session IV tied Bible exegesis to patristic consensus, arguably meant to mean, where such a thing existed).

In footnote 6, Sarfati cites Russell Grigg - a huge fan of the reformers and able to misconstrue Catholicism.

But first and foremost, I'd like either a retraction or a source for the attack on the character of Pope Urban VIII./HGL

Were Neanderthals Giants?

Look at this:

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

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

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

Two options.

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

For the second option, see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarfati makes another argument:

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

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

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

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

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

* Quote and link:

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

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

Dear Dr. Sarfati, what does Scripture and Tradition Actually Mean?

French Catholics Usually NOT Young Earth Creationist - Why? · Are Normal French People Allowed to Look? · To French Fans of San Antonio · Are Some Catholics Being Taught That Young Earth Creationism Involves the Heresy "Sola Scriptura" [?] · Dear Dr. Sarfati, what does Scripture and Tradition Actually Mean?

First, I am glad you denounce the fraudulent claim that literal belief in Genesis 1 to 11 began with Ellen Gould White. I am now perusing her lies against the Catholic Church, and as Satan is a liar and accuser, I can safely say that she may have not at all been possessed, she was just a very biassed reader of people like Wylie and d'Aubigne, whose Luther romance, from childhood to Wartburg (it's interrupted after Wartburg to peep at Zwingli) is really magnificent as a romance, a bit like Washington Irving for Columbus, but fairly evasive about what Catholics were arguing.

The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1–11
Refuting Compromise, Chapter 3 (plus part of Chapter 8), 3rd Edn
by Jonathan Sarfati | Published: 18 January 2022 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/history-interpretation-genesis-refuting-compromise-3

Now, let's get down to a claim you make, not the least as crude as d'Aubigne or Wylie. Which I appreciate.

“Traditional” churches such as Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches hold that the combined testimony of the church fathers is on a par with Scripture itself. A common argument is that they were closer to the Apostles than we, so they know better.

However, this doesn’t necessarily follow. Paul’s letters were written largely to correct error in churches founded by the Apostles themselves. Furthermore, as the church became primarily Gentile, knowledge of Hebrew diminished, so that even some of the leading church fathers knew no Hebrew at all, including the highly influential Augustine (see below for more on Augustine). Still, many of the fathers had tremendous wisdom, which showed in the battles against anti-Trinitarian heresies.

What it means is not that each Church Father is a hagiographer, it means the Church Fathers taken together in what they agree on is a safe rule for the Christian faith.

Example : if all patristic writers had agreed the Tower of Babel were a kind of skyscraper, I would have had to scrap my idea Nimrod was aiming at a space rocket and God allowed that project to be fulfilled from Cape Canaveral and Bojkonur with a 4500 year delay, as He also allowed other individual projects (mentioned in the Bible and in Hebrew tradition) to be fulfilled (some wanted to get to heaven safe from any floods or disasters, well, Christ opened the pearly gates, and some wanted to kill God, they did so on Calvary). I drew a sigh of relief when I realised that some had taken the line it was a skyline of a towered wall. Because Church Fathers' unanimous is not an authority I'd like to brave.

Now, the parallel to the Bible books is in fact rather clear, namely that nothing that all apostolic churches agreed on can be wrong. And it is from these that we have the canon of most books in the NT (and some were disputed to the councils of Carthage and Rome, between Nicaea I and Constantinople I).

Then again, St. Paul wrote in response to appeals from Church leaders. Some of their diocesan laymen had gone wrong (notably often in Corinth!) and so he gives them admonitions to hand on. But as we claim, the Church Fathers never went wrong all of them together (you cite the majority view - recognised by St. Thomas as such - that creation days and rest happened within 168 hours, which we both take to be correct), so you too would allow that no fault happened across all of the apostolic churches in the time of the apostles.

Apart from that, I'd like to say simply "good work" but I stand somewhat questioning about your stating Julius Africanus had Christ born Anno Mundi 5500. You see, I have done some research, with the help of my friend Dean Stephan Borgehammar (Theol. fac. Lund) into the sources of the Roman martyrology for Christmas day, which says He was born after the flesh in Anno Mundi 5199. The late medieval version of Usuard got this addition from Historia scholastica, which in turn got the version of St. Jerome, who, in his turn made a good summing up of different details, but from Creation to Abraham followed Julius Africanus who had 2262 years Creation to Flood, 942 Flood to Abraham. In other words, he used a LXX without the second Cainan for Genesis 11.

Then again, there are parts where those who lived closest should be taken as knowing best : that's how I'd argue for not just Bible canon, but also Sacrifice of the Mass, also details of Apostolic Succession.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Chair of St. Peter in Rome
18.I.2022

Or obviously, for St. Peter not just leaving Jerusalem for Antioch, but also later Antioch for Rome./HGL

Philip Bell and me

We both had reasons to hate boarding school:

Around the age of ten I remember learning about evolution at school but I didn’t believe it at all, nor through my secondary school years. In fact, I endured the mocking of my peers in the dormitory of my boarding school and defended a literal Adam and Eve when I was around fifteen.*

Around the age of ten, I started dropping belief in evolution, after c. one year as a Christian trying to fit my previous belief (Evolution) with my new one, and failing, and also because I came across books somewhat advanced for my age, in which origin of language, memory by DNA and origin of DNA's ordered complexity were discussed - leaving me with a sense of disbelief, finally.

I was at a boarding school during terms from autumn 1983 to spring 1987. I had my fifteenth birthday there. And apart from there being no dormitory's in mine, the experience was similar.

Here is a difference:

However, there was a limitation: “I had no apologetic arguments to back it up.”

I had Ur Intet, a booklet by Edgar Andrews, and it later came out in English original with same choice of texts as this Swedish edition, as From Nothing to Nature.

I particularly remember being impacted by the evidence of comparative anatomy and the pentadactyl limb: the similarity of the bones of the five digits and limb in different animals. I readily swallowed the homology idea, that the human arm, dog leg, bat wing, and dolphin flipper had all sprung from a common ancestral animal. I was a theistic evolutionist of sorts by the age of eighteen.

Edgar Andrews had shown there were not ever any unspecialised animals with just four protruding and unfunctional blobs, developing from there to hind legs and wings, to legs and arms, to four arms, to four legs, to fins on a fish. And that evolution from specialised to specialised was a no no.

When I took time off from strict Young Earth Creationism ("the Catholic Church wouldn't allow evolution and deep time if it were all that bad" - I had meanwhile converted or started converting, since the one argument that did stump me was where Protestants had the Bible from if Catholicism was corrupt), it was more to a non-evolutionist very light version of deep time - basically two or three times the span of the Biblical chronology and lost civilisations along the way ... 10 000 BC must have looked like in Robert E Howard's books about Conan the Barbarian, or perhaps somewhat less cynical. Or so I thought.

Going to "evolution from amoeba to astronomer" or to accepting carbon 14 datings as final ... it didn't cross my thought. But dendro seemed fair and square for 20 000 years back ... and Hans Hörbiger's idea of eternal ice I hadn't heard of, but his idea of a succession of moons, and each provoking giantism just before falling onto earth and provoking a cataclysm, well, it came nice and handy - any memory of lost civilisations of giants could be from such pre-Biblical or post-Genesis 1:1 but pre-everything-else-Biblical times.

It ditched that complacency with even moderate deep time when reading St. Augustine's De Civitate Dei.

I was somewhat disappointed by the interview, not in so far as God not creating cancer before the fall, but rather because his experience of cancer genetics didn't put him on a trace of another - scientific - impossibility in Evolutionism. Earliest eucaryotes (on that theory) will not have had more than one chromosome pair, but we have 23 ... when a chromosome splits, you don't get two times the setup "telomere, genes, centromere, genes, telomere" but at least one of the parts must lack parts of that set up. Robertsonian fission should ring a bell to a cancer researcher, right?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XXIst Lord's Day after Pentecost
memory of St. Hedwig of Poland
17.X.2021

* Former cancer researcher vs creation compromise
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Creation 42(4):16–19, October 2020
https://creation.com/philip-bell-interview

If the Fix Stars are One Light Day Up ...

... and especially if they were so at Creation, what day did God make them and what day did they appear?

Did God make them on day 4 and they appeared to birds on day 5? Or did God make them on day 3 and they appeared on day 4?

I'll give a little hint, from Jonathan Sarfati:

Some assert that what really happened on this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not only fanciful science but bad exegesis. The Hebrew word ‘asah means ‘make’ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘create’ (bara’)—e.g. in Genesis 1:26–27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas like the big bang. If God had meant ‘appeared’, then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah), as He did when He said that the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9).

Evolution/long ages contradicts Genesis order of Creation
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Creation 37(3):52–54, July 2015
https://creation.com/evolution-v-genesis-order

So, I take it, if it is mentioned under day 4 and no starlight was created in transit, the celestial bodies like Aldebaran and Sirius and α Centauri were, if one light day up, created on day 4 and appeared on earth on day 5.

However, this is not what CMI has been saying on the Distant Starlight Problem. Here is perhaps their oldest attempt at "time convention" theory:

Observed time requires less information than calculated time. Anyone can look at a clock when an astronomical event occurs and record the time. However, to obtain the calculated time, one must already know the observed time, as well as the distance to the object and the speed of light. The distance to an object is often unknown, or not known very accurately. This is why astronomers record events according to the observed time convention. Yet, astrophysical calculations are almost always done in calculated time. Each convention is useful for certain purposes. We now ask a critical question: Which definition of time does God use in Genesis 1:14-19 when He creates the stars? Are the stars created on the fourth day—observed time, or the fourth day—calculated time?

Observed time is always useful, but for calculated time to be meaningful we must know the distance to the object and the speed of light. Did the ancient Hebrews know the speed of light accurately? They probably did not. Did they know the distance to the stars? Again, they probably did not. In fact, only in modern times has calculated time become meaningful; we have only recently known the speed of light and the distance to the stars with any accuracy. So the question now takes on a different form: Would God have used a definition of time that would only become meaningful thousands of years later? If God’ definition of time on Day 4 of Genesis is calculated time, then it would have been useless for ages. It would have been incomprehensible to all humanity for thousands of years until technology had developed to the level where we could measure the speed of light and the distance to the stars.

Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement
by Robert Newton | This article is from
Journal of Creation 15(1):80–85, April 2001
https://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-genesis-conventions-of-time-measurement

It seems that the number for this post begins with 404, so "error page missing" - between observed and calculated time, what about real time?

Einstein claimed that if two events happen at A and B, they are contemporaneous between A and B at some point, and A happens before B at A, B happens before A at B.

In fact, if the point where A and B are observed as contemporaneous is exactly in the middle of A and B, the real contemporaneity is A and B being contemporary. If you must get closer to A to see A and B at same time or even A first, arguably B happened first. If you must get closer to B, arguably A happened first. And the time difference in real time may be such that A happens first from both A and B or B happens first from both A and B.

There is a real order of events behind both observation and observation plus calculation. Since God is omniscient, He knows it.

The solution of Robert Newton involves that in the real order of events, God would have created Large Magellanic Cloud 200 000 years before He created earth, except it still "counts" as Him creating them on day 4, because due to starlight travel the stars could only be observed - only appeared - on day 4. In that case God would have created the universe inwards from periphery, and only bodies as close as Sun and Moon (Sun is light minutes away) would have been created actually on day 4.

I think Sarfati answered that one very clearly. A real nay that shall be a nay.

God used words that carried some meaning to Hebrews or Greeks, even if they carry a somewhat fuller one to us having "modern knowledge". St. John probably knew the ASCII code on Patmos, but he wrote so that the Greek gematria of Apollo (all five cases added together) or the Hebrew of Neron Kaisar, would make sense. Moses may well have known about Hydrogen molecules, but "water above the firmament" makes some sense.

For starlight to have been created in transit, which was a solution I took over from Edgar Andrews when I was a teen, though I glanced at Geocentrism even then, we would need to have no novas, no dying stars, any further away than 6000 to 7000 light years away. The implication of starlight created in transit would be, if Large Magellanic Cloud was created 6000 to 7000 years ago, one item in it sent off the light of a star exploding before it even existed - or God created light in transit with no source to link it to. Which would seem an act of dishonesty, unless God wanted to say sth else with this (in the Eucharist, we are warned it is not actually bread by God's explicits words, so those accepting starlight created in transit 7000 years ago up to 1987 for a star disappearing from a place 200 000 light years away would need to accept accidents sometimes exist without the normal substance that goes with them).

But there is a very much simpler solution, if Large Magellanic Cloud is 1 light day up.

What does it take for Large Magellanic Cloud to be 1 light day up? The distance 200 000 light years needs to be wrong.

What does it take for 200 000 light years to be wrong? The calculations on which the distance is based must be wrong.

What are these calculations? I do not know in detail. I do know however that someone in the early 19th C. matched apparent sizes with distances "known" from parallax trigonometry. And that stars of the "main series" were concluded to be roughly similar in size to the Sun. The main series are also close in spectrography to Sun light. From this and then from even smaller apparent sizes, one goes on to conclude distances too far off for parallax trigonometry. And from this, one concludes density of certain star clusters and from a typical density maybe this gives a hint on the number of stars in Large Magellanic Cloud - this maybe is the exact point where I am losing my way over the exact and detailed history of ideas behind 200 000 light years to Large Magellanic Cloud. But there is no maybe about the fact that without trigonometry based on parallax, there would have been no "main series" of sun-sized (more or less so) stars in the first place.

So, what does it take for parallax based trigonometry to be wrong? One simple thing : earth is unmoved and both "aberration" and "parallax" of any star are as proper movements as the "proper movement" (rightly so called, unrightly so singled out) of Barnard's star.

And this in turn is perfectly feasible, if the stars, both fix and planets and comets, but especially the fix stars, are moved by other factors than physical masses acting by processes of inertia of each body acting on itself and gravitation of other bodies by their masses also acting on it, namely if stars have angelic movers.

It is a fun fact, I became a geocentric the night to 24th August 2001, after 23rd going past a book shop, where I bought an 80's book on astronomy, after in the library debating with a man claiming "starlight created in transit" doesn't work for the supernova of 1987 in Large Magellanic Cloud, which he may have picked up from either the article by Robert Newton a few months earlier, or from the debate in which Robert Newton spoke up.

I was already familiar with angelic movers, since St. Thomas Aquinas had been staple reading for a few years, between 1996 and early 1998. And as for the answer I got from a physics teacher - a Christian, a son of a missionary - back in the teens, I think I detected a circular proof in it.

The mechanics of the Solar System are supposedly known and this supposedly entails the Earth being one planet moving around a barycentre mostly inside and never very far outside the Sun, because the calculations from masses and speeds and directions matches up with observations. For one thing, the match is somewhat imperfect, but for another, the masses of Moon or Jupiter or even Earth itself are supposedly known because they have to fit this celestial mechanics and the observations. Which is known because of the masses and the observations, which is known because of the mechanics and the observations, and the observations themselves never actually directly include the mass of any body in the Solar System.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IXth Sunday after Pentecost
2.VIII.2020

PS, what I looked up in the astronomy book was obviously angular sizes of "parallax", "aberration" and "proper movement"./HGL