dimanche 1 août 2021

A Ramble, Centaurs and Andromeda


A Ramble, Centaurs and Andromeda · Centaurs Revisited

The Domestication and History of Modern Horses
By K. Kris Hirst | Updated September 01, 2018
https://www.thoughtco.com/horse-history-domestication-170662


That evidence has been found at Krasnyi Yar in Kazakhstan, in portions of the site dating to as early as 3600 BC. The horses may have been kept for food and milk, rather than riding or load-bearing.

Accepted archaeological evidence of horseback riding includes bit wear on horse teeth—that has been found in the steppes east of the Ural mountains at Botai and Kozhai 1 in modern Kazakhstan, around 3500-3000 BC. The bit wear was only found on a few of the teeth in the archaeological assemblages, which might suggest that a few horses were ridden to hunt and collect wild horses for food and milk consumption. Finally, the earliest direct evidence of the use of horses as beasts of burden—in the form of drawings of horse-drawn chariots—is from Mesopotamia, about 2000 BC. The saddle was invented around 800 BC, and the stirrup (a matter of some debate among historians) was probably invented around 200-300 AD.


Forget the saddle and the stirrup for now. And look here:

A History of Horseback Riding
https://tophorsebackriding.com/blog/a-history-of-horseback-riding/


The first records of systematic training, conditioning, and caretaking of horses date back to around 1350 b.c. They were written by a man named Kikkuli. Kikkuli was a Mittani, an Aryan group with cultural ties to India.


What years in the real timeline are these?

Using, not citing : Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html


3600
c. 1950 BC
3500
Genesis 14, 1935 BC
3000
c. 1780 BC
2000
c. 1600 BC
1350
c. 1315 BC


When was the Trojan War? 1179 BC. This should be compared to real dates, not to the inflated C14-dates. In other words, first, far-off, domestication of horses was 771 years before the Trojan War, their arrival as drawing chariots into the Near East was 421 years before it. Now, the adult age of Hercules and Iason was a generation earlier, deduct 30 years, 391. The early life of both would have been 20 or thirty before that - like just 365 years after the horse arrived in the Near East with chariots. Or 50 years after Kikkuli wrote his treatise far off in North Syria.

This means, if any rider on horseback came to near Greece relevant time before the Trojan War, he would be very exotic. He might even be seen as a monster, from some distance.

This gives one a certain idea, or a reinforcement of an idea already given by some uniformitarian scholars, about what Nessos (manhood, near death of Hercules) or Cheiron (childhood of Hercules and Iason) might have really been. A rider, seen by a society with no riders. Which would have had very small chances of hearing about riders even from afar.

In other words, the accounts need not be wrong, they would just involve a misunderstanding. A very awkward one, but apart from the awkward biology it suggests, a very minor one in geometry - one bulky thing, not two, sticking up from a horseback.

A little caveat on centaurs, though ... when St. Anthony the Great went for a visit to St. Paul the First Hermit, he saw a faun and a centaur. Could it have been some kind of spiritual phenomenon, rather than a purely physical one? Gary Bates might be inclined to think so.*

Our views of angels as just spiritual beings—that is, somehow just ethereal, ghostly or vaporous is culturally driven by images of beings with fairy wings, for example. Pastor Johnny Hunt (former President of the Southern Baptist Convention) addressed this misconception in the movie. It is clear that they are intelligent, thinking beings, and can appear physically in a variety of forms in our realm.


But if so, why not other manifestations, like in stars? Bear with me ... it's a ramble!

Now, there was some generations before Hercules a certain ancestor of his named Perseus. Whose bride was Andromeda. We have stars named for them.

l'Observatoire de Paris : The formation of the Andromeda galaxy finally elucidated
https://www.observatoiredeparis.psl.eu/the-formation-of-the.html?lang=en


In the huge Andromeda disk, all stars older than 2 billion years undergo random motions, the scale of which being almost comparable to their rotation around the centre of this galaxy. In comparison, stars of the disk of the Milky Way, e.g., our Sun, are subject only to a simple rotation.


Now, as some know, I believe angels move stars. So did Riccioli:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html


But do the random motions undergone by the stars convince astronomers? No.

7 to 10 billion years ago, instead of Andromeda, there were two galaxies on an encountering orbit. The astronomers optimized by simulations the trajectories of both galaxies. They discovered that they had finally merged 1.8 to 3 billion years ago. This collision gave birth to Andromeda, as we know it. "We showed that the biggest of both parent galaxies was approximately four times as massive as the smallest ", specifies François Hammer, astronomer of the Paris Observatory - PSL, first co-author of the study.


In other words, don't count on astronomers to actually investigate the position of Riccioli any more!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Tenth Sunday after Pentecost
1.VIII.2021

* https://creation.com/ufo-spiritual-phenomena
and citation from
https://creation.com/spirit-physical

jeudi 22 juillet 2021

Genesis 6:5,6


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, t repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart,

Haydock comment on Genesis 6 has these comments:

Ver. 5. At all times. Hebrew: only evil continually. They had no relish for any thing else: as we may say of a glutton, he thinks of nothing but his belly. Yet some good thoughts would occur occasionally, and we may grant that they did some things which were not sinful. M. --- If we follow corrupt nature, and live among sinners, we find a law within us warring against the spirit; and a very powerful grace is necessary to rescue us from such a dangerous situation. C. --- Though the expressions in this place seem general, they must be understood with some limitations. W.

Ver. 6. It repented him, &c. God, who is unchangeable, is not capable of repentance, grief, or any other passion. But these expressions are used to declare the enormity of the sins of men, which was so provoking as to determine their Creator to destroy these his creatures, whom before he had so much favoured. Ch. --- God acted outwardly as a man would do who repented. H.


No one of the commenters here was a Church Father, M = Menochius, C = ?, W, Witham, Ch. = Challoner, H. = Haydock.

What about Postilla in libros geneseos?

Videns autem Deus, quod multa malitia hominum et cetera. Posuit hominum culpam poena dignam. Hic ponit justam Dei indignationem, et puniendi dispositionem. Dicitur igitur, videns, etc. videns siquidem non tantum exteriora mala opera, sed interiores cogitationes et internos motus animorum. Unde sequitur, et quod cuncta cogitatio hominis intenta esset ad malum. Videt autem ista visione intelligentiae simplicis, non approbationis. Unde ex hoc incutit nobis timorem, qui non possumus effugere Dei cognitionem. Poenituit eum, quod hominem fecisset. More humano loquitur. Et est quaedam figura, quae anthropospathos dicitur, quando passiones hominum Deo attribuuntur. Mos autem hominum est, quod quando unum opus destruunt, faciunt ex cordis displicentia. Cum etiam aliquid fecerint, et quando putant, quod aliquod malum potest contingere, praeveniendo occurrunt et destruunt, et impediunt, et praetimentes in futurum timore peccata vitant. Tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus. In nobis enim actum detestationis sequitur passio doloris. Et isto modo hic loquitur more humano. Unde vult dicere, quod habuit displicentiam. Et accipit vel significat causam per effectum. Delebo hominem, quem creavi, a facie terrae, ab homine usque ad animantia. Sed quare delevit animantia? Dic, quod in signum detestationis eorum, pro quibus erant facta, et ut ostenderetur, quod non sunt, nec conservantur, nisi propter hominem.

CORPUS THOMISTICUM "Ignoti Auctoris" Postilla in libros Geneseos a capite VI ad caput XI https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/xgn06.html


I think "ignoti autoris" is wrong, and the older attributtion to St. Thomas is right, but that he wrote it when young, in Italy, before coming to Paris, probably already when he was still among Benedictines.

For the moment, I am not translating, just noting that he did not bring up what came to my mind. It can be noted, though, that he says, like one Church Father, that beasts were destroyed along with men, because they were created for men.

6:6 And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually, 7 then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply. 8 And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man with cattle, and reptiles with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them. 9 But Noah found grace before the Lord God.

THEODORET OF CYRUS. Why was the bulk of the human race wiped out by the flood? His intention was to annihilate Cain’s line, but since the tribe of the virtuous had intermarried with Cain’s line, it was also involved in the punishment. Wanting to make a beginning of a new way of life, he preserved Noah and his sons along with their wives, for Noah was good and righteous, one who had come from the line of the virtuous men and shunned intercourse with lawlessness. [Theodoret of Cyrus, Question 50 on Genesis]

DIDYMUS OF ALEXANDRIA. Even though the brute beasts did not act with free will, it was logical that they should perish along with the human being, for whom they were made to meet his needs, only an ember surviving from them along with Noah. [Didymus of Alexandria, Commentary on Genesis]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTIANOPLE. I am grieved that I have made them. Not that God regrets; perish the thought; rather, Sacred Scripture recounts it to us in human fashion so as to teach us that the excess of their sins aroused the loving God to such anger. “The Lord God reconsidered what he had done in creating the human being on the earth”- in other words, Surely by doing this I have not been responsible for making him fall into such disaster and become guilty of his own ruin? By doing this I placed him in a position of such dignity right from the very outset and showed such concern for him so that he might choose virtue and be saved from ruin. But since he did not cooperate with my loving kindness, it then proved better to put an end to his evil designs. [John Chrysostom, Homily 22 on Genesis]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. What in some Latin codices appears written thus: “and repented”. And God said: I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth, in Greek, who, rather than “repented,” may mean “reconsidered.” Also some Latin codices present this term. [Augustine of Hippo, Locutiones de Genesi. 14]

Patristic Bible Commentaries ~ The Early Church Fathers Commentary on the Bible : Genesis 6 https://litteraldotorg.wordpress.com/genesis-6/


No, they not either ... in a sense perhaps later on Chrysostom on verses 10 to 14 (9 to 13 in the ordinary verse division):

And see how Scripture does not consider mankind worthy of more than unimportant memory, but calls them by the name of earth, at once indicating the gravity of their sins and the wrath of God. Now the earth was corrupt, it says, before God: that is, they did everything differently from how God had instructed them, trampling on His commandments, losing the inborn judge of human nature through idleness. Did you see, beloved, how evil sin is, how it brings it about that men are not worthy to be called by their own name? Again, hear what follows: And the Lord God saw the earth, and it was corrupt. See again how it calls them earth. And afterwards, having called them earth once, and again, and a third time, so that no one might suppose He speaks of the physical earth, it says: For all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. Nor here does it honor them with the name of man, but calls them flesh: by which it wishes to teach us that it speaks not of this earth, but of men clothed in flesh and devoting themselves completely to earthly works. [John Chrysostom, Homily 22 on Genesis]


Earth may be repeated, not because of being the basest element of the four, as Chrysostom knew them, but because of some kind of globalism. And flesh because of some point involving biology.

This brings us to my point, which no Church Father has directly denied : a man having all his thoughts on evil at all times need not involve his being himself evil, he could be forced by some globalism to think of an evil.

What are masks in the streets supposed to "remind" us of? Well, Covid is an evil. No one pretends it is a good. But could part of the evil of our situation be to be reminded of it "at all times"?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Mary Magdalene
22.VII.2021

vendredi 9 juillet 2021

Cave Art


Shem the Cave Painter? Or Japheth? · Cave Art · Evolutionists have a war problem

LiveScience
Low oxygen levels would have caused hallucinations, but where the oxygen levels were higher, they found other means, that's how cave art was done, folks!

Answers in Genesis
Says who?

Me:
"40 000 BP" = actual year 2957 BC, namely the Flood. "14 000 BP / 12 000 BC" =* ...

2711 B. Chr.
0.302799 pmC/100, so dated as 12 611 B. Chr.
2688 B. Chr.
0.328739 pmC/100, so dated as 11 888 B. Chr.

(12 611 + 11 888)/2 = 12 249.5 BC = roughly = 12 000 BC
(2711 + 2688)/2 = 2699.5 BC, or 2700 BC, Noah had about a century left to live.

So, whoever started the trend must have been on the Ark.

Altered states of mind? Well, the Ark doing some rollings (without capsizing!) might have had a somewhat hypnotic effect, so, maybe there was some kind of nostalgia or craving for this ... and drawing animals, certainly spending c. 1 year on very close terms with animals would make such drawings a fairly nostalgic moment.

As I think Babel ended at birth of Phalec, 401 after the Flood, I also think it began c. 50 years earlier, when Noah died.

This makes the carbon ages mentioned - and my lineup is fairly useless for non-carbon uniformitarian ones** - into the time when Noah was still alive.

On previous tables, I put it into the time when Shem was still alive, but since then I obviously revised when exactly Babel / Göbekli Tepe fits into the Biblical timeline. If it was Shem's contemporary Japheth, why didn't Japheth or his wife continue?


* Using my famous New Tables:
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html


** So, it says nothing about thermoluminiscence age of 40 000 BP for Mungo woman, but it says sth about the carbon age for her, c. 20 000 BP, depending on what tissue.

lundi 5 juillet 2021

12,000 Years Ago - How Far Back was that Really?


Terru from Urkesh Thare, father of Abraham? · 12,000 Years Ago - How Far Back was that Really?

Another hat tip to a video by AiG:

Who Is Paying for Baby Parts? - Answers News: April 28, 2021
April 28th 2021 | Answers in Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKtcAaa2v3U


Another article:

New Scientist : Untouched nature was almost as rare 12,000 years ago as it is now
EARTH 19 April 2021, By Layal Liverpool
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2274704-untouched-nature-was-almost-as-rare-12000-years-ago-as-it-is-now/


Key quote:

They found that most – 72.5 per cent – of Earth’s land has been shaped by human societies since as far back as 10,000 BC, including more than 95 per cent of temperate and 90 per cent of tropical woodlands.


And another application of my tables.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html


Now, where in the tables does 10,000 BC fit? Just before Babel:

2621 B. Chr.
0.406138 pmC/100, so dated as 10 071 B. Chr.


A little caution. The tables were hand made, without computer aid, and the Flood to Babel table ends 2599 BC, while the beginning to end of Babel table begins 2607 BC. So, instead of taking this as "precisely 22 years before Babel" (as per within table I-II) or as "precisely 15 years before Babel" (as between table I-II and table II-III), I prefer you take this as a rough estimate.

This means, the people around back then would have been available in plenty.

It also means, if my identification of Babel is right, that spread of mankind as per Genesis 10 and dispersion of nations as per Genesis 11 are two different events. It also means, therefore, that the sinful intent behind Babel was not refusing to spread, but - for instance, as per my idea that was really Josephus' first - insisting of having a plan B when God had said it would not be necessary.

Genesis 10:32 These are the families of Noe, according to their peoples and nations. By these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood.

Had happened.

Genesis 11:9 And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Had not yet happened.

Now, after signing, I will go back to their video, that of AiG, and I will see when in the Biblical timeline they put it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Anthony-Maria Zaccaria
5.VII.2021

Cremonae, in Insubria, sancti Antonii-Mariae Zaccaria Confessoris, qui Clericorum Regularium sancti Pauli et Angelicarum Virginum fuit Institutor; atque, virtutibus omnibus et mirdculis insignis, a Leone Papa Decimo tertio inter Sanctos adscriptus est. Ejus corpus Mediolani, in Ecclesia sancti Barnabae, colitur.

PS. They do not give an alternative point in time immediately, but they state that human land management has sometimes been for the better and good that the article discovers it. I can confirm from an outing in Bokskogen (close to Malmö), if the landscape (it's a forest) had been pristine, it would have been lots more hazel, alder, brambles, impossible to walk through, since the waters would tend to that kind of moist vegetation. The beeches from which the forest gets its name (bok is both book and beech tree) grew after tilled soil, probably burnt and then tilled, had been re-abandoned. The guide told me that the tilling was "5000 years ago" and that is actually less than 4000 years ago:

1778 B. Chr.
0.859766 pmC/100, so dated as 3028 B. Chr.


It's on table IV to V. It's before Djoser's coffin and him being Joseph's pharao. But arguably, Joseph was already born./HGL

PPS - they use "evolutionary timeline" which, like "uniformitarian timeline" is imprecise, conflating the carbon date with other dating methods, that are not the same and don't reduce to Biblical dates the same way./HGL

vendredi 2 juillet 2021

Terru from Urkesh Thare, father of Abraham?


Terru from Urkesh Thare, father of Abraham? · 12,000 Years Ago - How Far Back was that Really?

watchJerusalem : Has Abraham’s Father, Terah, Been Discovered?
Near Eastern tablets that name and describe an individual closely matching the biblical patriarch Terah
By Christopher Eames • June 21 (2021)
https://watchjerusalem.co.il/1233-has-abrahams-father-terah-been-discovered


I would say no.

1900 BC or 1800 BC must here be understood as carbon dated.

We are therefore arguably dealing with people who take carbon dates for real dates, even this far back, and on top of that use the Jewish chronology which is severely shortened in the context of the weeks of Daniel.

Masoretic text has same chronology as Vulgate and King James, meaning, if chronologies match in post-Christian times (they have two years more back to destruction of Jerusalem), and there were no shortenng, one would end up with, in 2007, the anno mundi year 2007 + 4004 = 6011. Instead, it was 5777. Now, 6011 - 5777 = 234 years. So, in their view, a date of 1800 BC would be like our 1800 + 234 = 2034 BC. And Thare was certainly already alive then.

But remember, not just do they have too short an OT chronology, they also deal with carbon dates equalling real ones. Back in real 2034 BC, what would an organic object alive then leave as carbon date today?

2041 B. Chr.*
0.766964 pmC/100, so dated as 4241 B. Chr.
2019 B. Chr.
0.778962 pmC/100, so dated as 4069 B. Chr.


It would date some time between 4241 BC and 4069 BC.

Inversely, if sth carbon dates as, no use taking "2034 BC" as it matches in their equivalent of Biblical chronology, but rather 1800 BC, it would be from ...

1588 B. Chr.*
0.97068 pmC/100, so dated as 1838 B. Chr.
1566 B. Chr.
0.97441 pmC/100, so dated as 1776 B. Chr.


... between 1588 BC and 1566 BC, when Moses was growing up as Prince in Egypt.

So, the tablet for Terru is way too late to refer to, individually, someonenot just named Thare, but actually the father of Abraham.

But let's see how many years they are apart : 2034 BC - 1577 BC = 457 years.

Let's compare Gustavs, in Sweden. King Gustav Wasa became king in 1527, 1527 + 457 = 1984, and that's a few years after the death of Gustaf VI Adolf.

If Thare ruled, not just in Urkesh, but anywhere near it (like Urfa), our Terru would have a comparable chronological distance to him as Gustaf VI Adolf to Gustav Wasa. So, he could well be named for him.**

Hat tip to Answers in Genesis who mentioned the discovery:

Did Archeologists Find Terah? - Answers News: June 30, 2021
Diffused directly on June 30, 2021 | Answers in Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbjDpfcTiUw


Unfortunately, while their scepsis for identity is good, but vaguely expressed, they also claim Woolley's Ur is "the traditional" Ur. It's not. Here wikipedia gives a better overview:

Ur is possibly the city of Ur Kasdim mentioned in the Book of Genesis as the birthplace of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim patriarch Abraham (Ibrahim in Arabic), traditionally believed to have lived some time in the 2nd millennium BC. There are however conflicting traditions and scholarly opinions identifying Ur Kasdim with the sites of Şanlıurfa, Urkesh, Urartu or Kutha.

The biblical Ur is mentioned four times in the Torah or Old Testament, with the distinction "of the Kasdim/Kasdin"—traditionally rendered in English as "Ur of the Chaldees". The Chaldeans had settled in the vicinity by around 850 BC, but were not extant anywhere in Mesopotamia during the 2nd millennium BC period when Abraham is traditionally held to have lived. The Chaldean dynasty did not rule Babylonia (and thus become the rulers of Ur) until the late 7th century BC, and held power only until the mid 6th century BC. The name is found in Genesis 11:28, Genesis 11:31, and Genesis 15:7. In Nehemiah 9:7, a single passage mentioning Ur is a paraphrase of Genesis.

In 1625, the site was visited by Pietro Della Valle, who recorded the presence of ancient bricks stamped with strange symbols, cemented together with bitumen, as well as inscribed pieces of black marble that appeared to be seals.

European archaeologists did not identify Tell el-Muqayyar as the site of Ur until Henry Rawlinson successfully deciphered some bricks from that location, brought to England by William Loftus in 1849.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur#Identification_with_biblical_Ur

While Urkesh is near Haran, so is Urfa. Or Şanlıurfa. "Venerable Urfa". Local tradition, both of Jews and of Muslims consider this as the youth residence of Abraham. That they also consider him as contemporary with Nimrod and as inventor of Kebab is perhaps less valuable.

This obviously ties in with my idea of Göbekli Tepe, very close to Urfa, as Babel.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Visitation of the Blessed Virgin
to Elisabeth
2.VII.2021

* Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html


pmC/100 means, pmC is by itself a percentage fraction, I have found counting in pure decimal fractions somewhat easier and not changed the results.

And pmC as such - the level of C14 in relation to C12. Measured in percentages of the modern level, corrected to preindustrial values.

** And the present king, Charles XVI, has Gustaf as added second name.

vendredi 11 juin 2021

What did St. Thomas Really Say?


II Sent. Dist. XII q.1, a.2

Articulus 2 Article 2
 
Utrum omnia sint creata simul, et distincta per species Whether everything was created at once, also (thus) distinguished by kinds.
 
[4538] arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnia sint simul creata, et distincta per species. Primo per hoc quod habetur Eccle. 18, 1: qui vivit in aeternum, creavit omnia simul. To the second we proceed thus. It would seem that everything was created at once, also distinguished by kinds. First, by what is said in Ecclesiasticus 18:1 he who liveth foreever created all at once.
 
[4539] arg. 2 Praeterea, magis distat spiritualis et corporalis creatura, quam duae corporales. Sed spiritualis et corporalis simul facta esse ponuntur. Ergo multo fortius omnes corporales. Furthermore, there is more distance between the spiritual and the corporal creature, than between two corporal ones. But that spiritual and corporal creature was made at once is posited. Therefore much more all corporal ones.
 
[4540] arg. 3 Praeterea, ut dicitur Deut. 32, 4, Dei perfecta sunt opera; nec potest esse ratio quare perfectio ad tempus differretur, quam creatura per se consequi non poterat, nec ab alio nisi a Deo. Cum ergo creaturae secundum suas perfectiones in species distinguantur, videtur quod a principio sub distinctione specierum creata sint omnia. Furthermore, as is said in Deuteronomy 32:4, God's works are perfect ones; and it cannot be any reason why the perfection should be differed for a time, which perfection the creature could not acquire by itself, nor by another except by God. As then creatures are distinguished in kinds according to their perfections, it appears that from the beginning all be created under the distinction of the kinds.
 
[4541] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, opus creationis divinam potentiam manifestat. Sed potentiam agentis minus demonstrat effectus successive completus quam subito in sua perfectione productus. Ergo videtur quod a principio omnia simul distincta sint. Furthermore, the work of creation manifests the power of God. But the power of an agent is less demonstrated by an effect completed successively than by one produced suddenly in its perfection. Therefore it appears that from the beginning all be distinguished at once.
 
[4542] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 arg. 5 Praeterea, constat quod Deus totum opus unius diei in uno momento produxit. Ergo videtur ridiculum dicere, quod in toto die ab operando cessaverit usque ad principium alterius diei, quasi ex opere lassatus. Ergo videtur quod non per successiones dierum creaturae distinctae sint, sed a principio creationis. Furthermore, it is clear that God produced all the work of one day in one moment. Therefore it appears ridiculous that He abstain from working for a whole day until the beginning of next day, as if tired from work. Therefore it appears that the creatures be distinguished not by a succession of days, but from the beginning of creation.
 
[4543] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 arg. 6 Praeterea, partes universi dependent ab invicem, et praecipue inferiores a superioribus. Sed eorum quae dependent ab invicem, unum non est sine altero. Ergo videtur inconvenienter dici quod primo fuerit aqua et terra, et postmodum stellae factae sint. Furthermore, the parts of the universe depend on each other, and especially the lower ones on the higher ones. But of those that depend on each other, one is not without the other. Therefore it appears to be said inconveniently that first there were water and earth and the stars were made later.
 
[4544] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 arg. 7 Sed contra, Augustinus dicit, quod major est hujus Scripturae auctoritas quae habetur in principio Genesis, quam omnis humani ingenii perspicacitas. Sed ibi scriptum est, per senarium dierum creaturas distinctas esse. Ergo videtur quod ita necessarium sit ponere. But on the contrary, St. Augustin says, that the authority of this Scripture which is in the beginning of Genesis is greater than all the perspeciacity of human cleverness. But here it is written, that the creatures where distinguished by a sixness of days. Therefore it appears necessary to pose it so.
 
[4545] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 arg. 8 Praeterea, natura imitatur operationem creatoris. Sed in operatione naturali est processus de imperfecto ad perfectum. Ergo videtur quod etiam in operatione creatoris; et ita videtur quod non omnia simul distincta sint in ipso creationis principio. Furthermore, nature imitates the operation of the Creator. But in the natural operation there is a process from imperfect to perfect. Therefore it appears that it was also in the operation of the Creator; and thus it appears that all was not distinct in the very beginning of creation.
 
[4546] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum, quod quae ad fidem pertinent, dupliciter distinguuntur. I answer that one must say, that what belongs to faith is disguished in two classes.
 
Quaedam enim sunt per se substantia fidei, ut Deum esse trinum et unum, et hujusmodi: in quibus nulli licet aliter opinari; unde apostolus ad Gal. 1, dicit, quod si Angelus Dei aliter evangelizaverit quam ipse docuerat, anathema sit. For some things are of themselves substance of the Faith, like God being three and one, and things like this: in which it is licit for noone to opine otherwise; wherefore the Apostle to Galatians 1 says, that of an Angel of God evangelise otherwise than he had taught, it be anathema.
 
Quaedam vero per accidens tantum, inquantum scilicet in Scriptura traduntur, quam fides supponit spiritu sancto dictante promulgatam esse: quae quidem ignorari sine periculo possunt ab his qui Scripturas scire non tenentur, sicut multa historialia: et in his etiam sancti diversa senserunt, Scripturam divinam diversimode exponentes. But some are [of the faith] only "per accidens", namely insofar as they are transmitted in Writ, which Faith presumes to be promulgated by dictation of the Holy Spirit: which on the one hand can be ignored without danger by those who are not obliged to know Writ, like many historic things: and in these also the saints have sensed diversely, exposing divine Writ in different ways.
 
Sic ergo circa mundi principium aliquid est quod ad substantiam fidei pertinet, scilicet mundum incepisse creatum, et hoc omnes sancti concorditer dicunt. Quo autem modo et ordine factus sit, non pertinet ad fidem nisi per accidens, inquantum in Scriptura traditur, cujus veritatem diversa expositione sancti salvantes, diversa tradiderunt. Thus, then, about the beginning of the world, there is what pertains to the substance of faith, namely that the world began created, and this all the saints say in concord. But in what way and order it be made, is not to the faith except "per accidens", insofar as it is transmitted in Writ, saving the truth of which the saints have transmitted diversely by a diverse exposition.
 
Augustinus enim vult, in ipso creationis principio quasdam res per species suas distinctas fuisse in natura propria, ut elementa, corpora caelestia, et substantias spirituales; St. Augustine for instance "wants" that in the very beginning of creation some things be distinguished in their own kinds in their own nature, like elements, celestial bodies, [purely] spiritual substances;
 
alia vero in rationibus seminalibus tantum, ut animalia, plantas, et homines, quae omnia postmodum in naturis propriis producta sunt in illo opere quo post senarium illorum dierum Deus naturam prius conditam administrat; but other ones only in their seminal reasons, like animals, plants and men, all of which later produced in that work in which after [along] the sixfold of those days God administers the previously established nature.
 
de quo opere Joan. 5, 17, dicitur: pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor; of which work it is said, John 5, 17, my father works to this day and I work.
 
nec in distinctione rerum attendendum esse ordinem temporis, sed naturae et doctrinae. and in the distinction of the things one should not wait for the order of time, but of nature and of doctrine.
 
Naturae, sicut sonus praecedit cantum natura, sed non tempore; et ita quae naturaliter priora sunt, prius facta memorantur, sicut terra prius quam animalia, et aqua prius quam pisces, et sic de aliis. Of nature, as sound precedes song by nature but not by time; and thus what is naturally prior is mentioned first, like earth is prior to animals, water prior to fish and so for the other ones.
 
Doctrinae vero ordine, sicut patet in docentibus geometriam: quamvis enim partes figurae sine ordine temporis figuram constituant, tamen geometria docet constitutionem fieri protrahendo lineam post lineam: et hoc fuit exemplum Platonis, ut dicitur in principio caeli et Mun. And order of doctrine, as is clear in those who teach geometry: for while the parts of the figure constitute the figure without an order of time, the geometry teaches that the constitution is made drawing line after line: and this was the exemple of Plato, as is said in "beginning of heaven and the world".
 
Ita etiam et Moyses rudem populum de creatione mundi instruens, per partes divisit quae simul facta sunt. So also Moses, instructing the rude people about the creation of the world, divided into parts what is made all at once.
 
Ambrosius vero, et alii sancti ponunt ordinem temporis in distinctione rerum servatum: et haec quidem positio est communior, et magis consona videtur litterae quantum ad superficiem; St. Ambrose, on the other hand, and other saints, pose that the order of time is preserved in distinguishing the things: and this position is more common, and appears more consonant to the letter as to its surface;
 
sed prior est rationabilior, et magis ab irrisione infidelium sacram Scripturam defendens: but the former is more reasonable, and more defending holy Writ from the laughter of infidels:
 
quod valde observandum docet Augustinus super Genes. ad Litt., libro 1, cap. 19, ut sic Scripturae exponantur, quod ab infidelibus non irrideantur; et haec opinio plus mihi placet; tamen utramque sustinendo, ad omnia argumenta respondendum est. which St. Augustine teaches to be much observed, de Genesi ad Litteram, book 1, chapter 19, that the Writ should be exposed in such a manner that it may not be laughed at by infidels, and this opinion pleases me; but sustaining both, I'll have to respond to all the arguments.
 
[4547] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum est, quod secundum Gregorium, dicuntur omnia simul creata per substantiam materiae, et non per speciem formae; vel etiam in sui similitudine, sicut anima rationalis, quae Angelis similis est, non ex materia propaganda. To the first one must say, that according to Gregory, all are said to be created at the same time by the substance of matter and not by the kind of form; or also in its likeness, as the rational soul is like the angels, but not from the matter to be multiplied.
 
[4548] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum, quod corporalia omnia communicant in materia, sive sit una, sive plures: et quia materia non praecedit compositum, ideo ut ordo temporis ordini naturae responderet, prius facta est materia corporalis, et deinde per formas distincta. Non autem corporalis natura ex spirituali producitur vel sicut ex materia, vel sicut ex efficiente; et ideo non est similis ratio. To the second, that all corporeal things have matter in common whether it be one or many: and since matter does not precede the composite, therefore so that the order of time may correspond to the order of nature, first was the corporeal matter made, and then in was distinguished by forms. But the corporeal nature is produced from the spiritual one, either as from a matter or as from an efficient cause; and therefore the comparison doesn't hold.
 
[4549] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum, quod sicut creatura non habet esse ex se, ita nec perfectionem: et ideo ad utrumque ostendendum, voluit Deus ut creatura prius non esset, et postmodum esset; et similiter prius esset imperfecta, et postmodum perfecta. To the third, that as creatures do not have being from themselves, so also neither perfection: and therefore to show both, God wanted creature to first not be and then be; and likewise first be imperfect and afterwards perfect.
 
[4550] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum, quod in creatione non tantum debet ostendi potentiae virtus; sed etiam sapientiae ordo, ut quae prius natura sunt, prius etiam instituantur. To the fourth, that in creation it is meet to show not only the might of power; but also the order of wisdom, so that what is first by nature should also be first put into place.
 
[4551] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum, quod ad ostendendum diversam distinctorum naturam, voluit Deus ut unicuique rerum distinctioni dies unus responderet, et non ex aliqua necessitate vel lassitudine agentis. To the fifth, that to show the diverse nature of distinct things, God wanted that to each distinction of things one day correspond, and not from any necessity or fatigue of the agent.
 
[4552] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 ad 6 Ad sextum dicendum, quod non est eadem natura rei jam perfectae, et prout est in suo fieri; et ideo quamvis natura mundi completi hoc exigat ut omnes partes essentiales universi sint simul, potuit tamen aliter esse ab ipsa mundi factione; sicut in homine perfecto non potest cor esse sine aliis partibus; et tamen in formatione embrionis, cor ante omnia membra generatur. To the sixth, that the nature of a thing already perfected is not the same as insofar as it is in its coming to being; and so, while the nature of the completed world requires that all the essential parts of the universe be simultaneously, it could however be otherwise from the selfsame making the the world; as in a perfected man the heart cannot be without the other parts; and yet in the formation of the embryo, the heart is generated before all members.
 
[4553] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 ad 7 Ad septimum dicendum, quod auctoritati Scripturae in nullo derogatur, dum diversimode exponitur, salva tamen fide: quia majori veritate eam spiritus sanctus fecundavit quam aliquis homo adinvenire possit. To the seventh it must be said, that to the authority of Writ no derogation be done, as it is exposed in different ways, always saving the Faith however: since with a greater truth the Holy Ghost impregnated it than any man be able to find.
 
[4554] Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 12 q. 1 a. 2 ad 8 Ad octavum dicendum, quod hoc est ex imperfectione creaturae quod ex imperfecto ad perfectionem operando venit; quae proculdubio ultimam perfectionem daret, quantumcumque posset, servata tamen operis conditione: et ideo non oportet quod in hoc, divinum opus operationi creaturae sit simile. To the eighth, that this is from the imperfection of the creature, that it comes working from imperfect into perfection; which without a doubt will give the ultimate perfection, whenever it can, preserving however the condition of the work: and therefore it is not meet in this, that the divine work be similar to the operation of creatures.


The quote from St. Augustine is this one:

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are... In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (De Genesi ad Litteram) 1:19–20, Chapter 19


H/T to Just Genesis
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/04/st-augustine-on-genesis.html


Now, this means, while writing "on the sentences of Peter the Lombard", St. Thomas was favouring a one moment creation. Every argument for departing from the temporal order of the sequence given in the description of the work of six days, is an argument for a one moment creation.

When was this?

The Commentary on the Sentences dates from St. Thomas’s first teaching years in Paris, where he began teaching around the year 1252. As a new teacher, St. Thomas was expected to prepare lectures based on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, thus demonstrating his knowledge of and insight into both theology and philosophy. In the Sentences, St. Thomas was presented with a general theology text which draws upon the writings of the Church Fathers. This was a significant opportunity for St. Thomas to delve into the beauty of theology.


Aquinas Institute : Sentences Commentary
https://aquinasinstitute.org/aquinas-opera-omnia/sentences-commentary/


Now, later on, he was writing the Summa:

Summa theologiae, also spelled Summa theologica, also called the Summa, in Roman Catholicism, a systematic compendium of theology written by Thomas Aquinas between about 1265 and 1273.


Britannica : Summa theologiae
work by Saint Thomas Aquinas
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Summa-theologiae


By then, that is within 21 years from above, he was combining the one-moment creation with the six day one. One moment for "seminal reasons" and six days for developing genotype to phenotype. Those being six literal days.

But the point made about Writ being exposed differently needs to be carefully pondered as applying:

  • when all the expositions are in fact saving the truth of faith, that is the truth of the text too
  • when what is said involves contradicting nothing that is "per se" of the faith.


Now, it so happens, denying the six day creation and especially the Biblical timeline after it or moving some human skeleta to before it, does contradict fundamental doctrine, over and above being rather obviously no real expositions of the Bible, these being two exemples:

  • individuality of Adam is inextricably involved in the doctrine of the Fall, see Trent Session V, canons 1 to 3 on the Original Sin
  • putting some men before Adam is inadmissible as it implies anatomical humans could have not been involved in his call to Edenic immortality, which also is a prequel to our call to the Christian faith and sacraments, and this racist approach has also been condemned by Pope Paul III. Conquistadors did put in question whether Azteks were really human, and Paul III answered, "yes they are".


Therefore, we have no Thomasic presumption against Young Earth Creationism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Feast of Sacred Heart
11.VI.2021