Is It Christianity at All?

Creation vs. Evolution: Is It Christianity at All? · New blog on the kid: "Inspiring Philosophy" pretends to trace YEC to Ellen White ·Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dr Joel Edmund Anderson - a Fraud or a Dupe? · Magisterium and Polygenism · An Unexpected Turn

Progressive Christianity is retrograde or at least retrospective enough to be celebrating 100th anniversaries of events, notably the speech by Harry Emerson Fosdick.

"The Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines" resumed the line of demarcation as follows:

Christianity that is concerned only with biblical inerrancy, individual salvation at the expense of others, defining life at conception, denying science, discriminating against LGBTQIA+ children of God, and ignoring history is antithetical to the actual life and teachings of Jesus. Fundamentalist Christianity isn’t Christianity at all, and it’s turning droves of people away from Christianity while causing substantial church-induced trauma.

So, Fosdick claimed Fundamentalist Christianity isn't Christianity at all, and I'll take a look at each item in how he defines it.

"Christianity that is concerned only with ..."

C. S. Lewis remarked that "only" is a dangerous word.

Back when tithing mint and anise was part of the law, Our Lord spoke about:

Vae vobis scribae et pharisaei hypocritae, qui decimatis mentham, et anethum, et cyminum, et reliquistis quae graviora sunt legis, judicium, et misericordiam, et fidem! haec oportuit facere, et illa non omittere.
Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.
Matthew 23:23.

I think these days when Fundamentalists do "define life at conception" (as mentioned lower down) they cannot really be accused of leaving the weightier things of the law, judgement and mercy and faith.

But Fundamentalists also make a point against the evils of Lynchburg. Fundamentalists today and Catholics back then, ideally also Fundamentalists back then, opposed the Progressives who thought sterilising people was a good idea. And the ones who were these eugenistic progressives back then* were in fact depending heavily on Darwin, whom Progressives to this day have not left.

"biblical inerrancy,"
"denying science,"

And avoiding Eugenics.* Thank you.

"individual salvation at the expense of others,"

Given that defrauding others is antithetical to one's individual salvation, I don't know why they would say that.

"defining life at conception,"

Well, standing up for children targetted for slaughter kind of is one of the weightier things ...

"discriminating against LGBTQIA+ children of God,"

I am not sure what discrimination is supposed to mean here. OK, not strictly true, but that's how you tend to say a thing like this.

If LGBT etc are discriminated against by being less often heterosexually married, it is arguable that at least some of them are discriminating against themselves by not chosing that.

If certain people are concerned with stopping homosexuals from even trying, that would be the kind of progressives who think these determined by their homosexuality so as to be incapable of marriage. You know, the kind of people who are against denying science. Though in this case the science of determinism might not be the most recent word in psychological studies on homosexuality. IN the meantime, I think someone had made a study claiming lots of exclusive homosexuals find they are bisexual, and lots of bisexuals become exclusively heterosexual.

B u t - if it's about gay couples and lesbian couples not getting the same respect and dignity as married couples, able to procreate children, which is what I suspect, that's actually forbidden to heterosexuals too.

"and ignoring history"

I'm not sure what history we are supposed to be ignoring. Again, not strictly true, but that's how you tend to say a thing like this.

Let me guess ...

"The guys who canonised the 27 books were Catholics!"

That might bother lots of Protestant Fundamentalists, but doesn't bother this Catholic Fundamentalist the least.

"The reading where Scripture is upheld against discoveries in science is discredited by the Galileo case!"

I'd rather say it's the Heliocentric ideology (pertinent for Distant Starlight problem) that's discredited by the Galileo case.

You can define this as "denying science" (and I note the only Science** who warned against denying Him before men is different from the "Science" of Heliocentrism and Evolution), but you can hardly call it "denying history" ...

"The idea that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman historically involves banning contraceptives!"

That might bother Protestant Fundamentalists less than these guys think, and certainly bothers this Catholic Fundamentalist not at all.

But I am afraid that the history we are supposed to be ignoring is sth totally different:

"You cannot ignore the uncertainty about the source Q!"

I'm not certain it even exists such a thing. Definitely not as a demoted already unfaithful to fact substrate with accretions already happening, which is anterior to the Synoptics or Synoptics other than Mark. And I suppose that is how the phrase is most often used.

"You cannot ignore Genesis 1 - 11 as sequence of events was plagiarised on Babylonian myth! Only the different theology is what is inerrant."

So far no Babylonian originals*** have been upcoming for Adam and Eve or for the Tower of Babel.

When it comes to the Ark of Noah vs giant coracle of Utnapishtim, while the texts of Gilgamesh may be slightly older than Moses, it's the text of Moses that is capable of providing realistic dimensions for an Ark that can actually float in a world wide flood.

"is antithetical to the actual life and teachings of Jesus."

Especially as summarised by people unwilling to look beyond their quotemining to see what their mined quotes actually mean.

Lonnie Frisbee can hardly be presented as taking too great a distance to sinners, but his views on some lifestyles that can be first and foremost thought of in relation to "Alphabet people" are hardly what Progressives would take as inclusive either. I'll trust him or Serafim Rose over Caleb Lines.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Annunciation to Our Lady
25.III.2023

* New blog on the kid : Who Fought Eugenics?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/03/who-fought-eugenics.html

** The Word of the Father also mentioned something which would in context mean that the timespan from the beginning of the universe, by creation from nothing, to the creation of Adam and Eve, is negligible compared to the 5200 or 5500 years plus from then to when He spoke. Mark 10:6.
*** Fair warning to any Progressive who imagines I am speaking from ignorance - I am not just a Fundamentalist, but also a Mythology geek, and I know a thing or two about Babylonian myth. Norse myth (which I know even better) is closer than Christianity.

Does Sennaar mean Sumer?

Are CMI Hearing Me? · Does Sennaar mean Sumer? · Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White considered Judi, but not Göbekli Tepe · Ah, Griffith and White Provided the Source Too · Sumeria, Damien Mackey, Intellectual Honour · Damien Mackey Has His View on Shinar, Nimrod and Babel

Here is an interesting part of French wikipedia:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

La terminologie employée par les historiens reprend en partie des termes rencontrés dans les textes antiques18,19.		The terminology used by historians is partially taken over from terms found in ancient texts.
Sumer est issu du terme akkadien Šumerum, correspondant au sumérien ki-engi (« pays autochtone » ?), qui désignait une région couvrant la partie sud de la Mésopotamie, souvent en opposition à la région qui la bordait au nord, le pays d'Akkad, Akkadum en akkadien et ki-uri en sumérien, peuplé majoritairement de Sémites, les « Akkadiens », locuteurs de l'akkadien.		Sumer comes from the Akkadian term Šumerum, which corresponds to the Sumerian ki-engi ("own land"?) which designated a region covering the South part of Mesopotamia, often in opposite to a region bordering it on the North, the land of Akkad, Akkadum in Akkadian and ki-uri in Sumerian, peopled in majority by Semites, the "Akkadians" who spoke Akkadian.
On trouvait du reste plus couramment le terme de « Pays », kalam, pour désigner ces contrées.		One found more commonly the term "land" - kalam - to designate these regions.
La langue sumérienne était également évoquée dans les textes, eme-gi7 (quelque chose comme « langue autochtone ») en sumérien, et šumeru en akkadien des phases babyloniennes tardives20.		The Sumerian tongue was also evoked in the texts, eme-gi7 (something like "own language") in Sumerian, and šumeru in the Akkadian of the late Babylonian phases.
Les historiens ont ensuite créé le terme « Sumériens » pour qualifier le peuple vivant dans cette région et parlant cette langue.		Historians have afterwards created the term "Sumerians" to qualify the people living in this region and speaking this language.

I think this is pretty definite against anyone pretending that Sennaar has to mean only South Mesopotamia in the Bible.

In German, "Alemannen" means a specific tribe among those making up German speakers, and in French "Allemands" means Germans.

Akkadian and Hebrew are not the same language, so Sennaar and Šumerum need not have the same delimitation. Both Akkadian and Sumerian were obviously post-Babel languages, since different. The restriction of Šumerum to the South can have very clear roots in that fact.

Before the Babel event, it was more natural to designate countries by natural features, and the ones most prominent would be:

• the plain
• the two rivers.

But it is not the plain as plain, since we find "a plain in the land of Sennaar" - therefore it is the two rivers. Which are identic up to North Syria and East Turkey.

This is obviously lost on people who insist Genesis 11 was redacted during the Babylonian captivity (which is as intelligent as saying "Apollonius of Rhodes wrote the Iliad and Odyssey"), and therefore when the ethnic meaning of Šumerum was already established. But they are anyway lost ... don't stray with them, please!/HGL

Prehistoric Ireland - Correcting the Dates

I looked up the wikipedian article with that title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Ireland

During the Last Glacial Maximum,[5] ice sheets more than 3,000 m (9,800 ft) thick scoured the landscape of Ireland, by 24,000 years ago (22 000 BC) they extended beyond the southern coast of Ireland, by 16,000 years ago (14 000 BC) they had retreated so that only an ice bridge existed between Northern Ireland and Scotland, by 14,000 years ago (12 000 BC) Ireland was completely isolated from Britain and by 11,700 years ago (9700 BC) this Glacial period is recognized as having ended with no more glaciers present, but leaving Ireland as an arctic tundra.

We Creationists think the Glaciation was shorter and ice sheets thinner, but this is about the dates.

22 000 BC, 14 000 BC, 12 000 BC, 9700 BC. The first one isn't there as a result in my tables, here are the two surrounding results!

2890 B. Chr.

0.09274 pmC/100, so dated as 22 540 B. Chr.

2867 B. Chr.

0.119246 pmC/100, so dated as 20 467 B. Chr.

Shall we agree it's 3/4 towards the former and 1/4 towards the latter?

(22 540 + 22 540 + 22 540 + 20 467) / 4 = 22 022 BC. Yes.

What does this imply for the real years (of which the result is indirectly a non-linear and irregular "function")?

(2890 + 2890 + 2890 + 2867) / 4 = 2884 BC

Is that correct with the successive rising amounts of carbon 14 in the atmosphere?

(9.274 + 9.274 + 9.274 + 11.9246) / 4 = 9.93665 pmC
=> 19 100 extra years

19 100 + 2884 = 21 984 BC (close enough).

2756 B. Chr.

0.250709 pmC/100, so dated as 14 206 B. Chr.

...

2688 B. Chr.

0.328739 pmC/100, so dated as 11 888 B. Chr.

These can stand as they are.

2621 B. Chr.

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

2607 B. Chr.

0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.

1/4 towards the former and 3/4 towards the latter?

(10 071 + 9607 + 9607 + 9607) / 4 = 9723 BC, close enough

(2621 + 2607 + 2607 + 2607) / 4 = 2610 BC

(40.6138 + 42.8224 + 42.8224 + 42.8224) / 4 = 42.27025 pmC
=> 7100 extra years

7100 + 2610 = 9710 BC

Please note, 9600 BC to 8600 BC in carbon dates, or 2607 BC to 2556 BC in real dates, is the time for Babel of Genesis 11, it is Göbekli Tepe. Yes, that is in Mesopotamia, South-East Turkey West of Turkish Armenia being that.

Mesolithic (8000–4000 BC)
Neolithic (4000–2500 BC)

2511 B. Chr.

0.507242 pmC/100, so dated as 8111 B. Chr.

2489 B. Chr.

0.519918 pmC/100, so dated as 7889 B. Chr.

(8111 + 7889) / 2 = 8000 BC
(2511 + 2489) / 2 = 2500 BC
(50.7242 + 51.9918) / 2 = 51.358 pmC
=> 5500 extra years

5500 + 2500 = 8000

4000 BC is 2007 or 2008 BC - I calculated it earlier. This is when Abraham is 7 or 8 years old.

1678 B. Chr.

0.894653 pmC/100, so dated as 2598 B. Chr.

1655 B. Chr.

0.914498 pmC/100, so dated as 2395 B. Chr.

(2598 + 2395) / 2 = 2497 BC
(1678 + 1655) / 2 = 1667 BC
(89.4653 + 91.4498) / 2 = 90.45755 pmC
=> 830 extra years

830 + 1667 = 2497 BC.

So, the key dates after Babel are 2500 BC, 2008 BC and 1667 BC. Happy St. Patrick's Day!/HGL

Answering McLean v. Arkansas

Creation vs. Evolution: Answering McLean v. Arkansas · New blog on the kid: How Can People in This Day and Age be Anything But Communist? Because we Can!

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is giving his defense of Traced:

Evolutionists Do NOT Want You to Know This . . . | Traced: Episode 16
Answers in Genesis, 17 Febr. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbiHj_0r4o

In it he mentions that ...

A Court ruled "creation science is not science"
https://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/evolution/unit16creationsci/overton.html#Heading10

and I look up this quote:

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: (1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and (5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Let's start with the last.

Ruse and other science witnesses

This is the kind of testimony that's called "expert witness" ... which is highly overrated in courts.

For one thing, there can be things there is no expertise on. Romans had no word for "expert" - while the word "expert" comes from Latin "expertus" that word was an adjective meaning experienced, not a nouns referring to a specific status. There were words for specific types of expertise. Medicus is physician, architectus is architect, faber is ... none of these things are close to what Ruse and the rest pretended to be experts on. I'll respect, usually, as a matter of general principle, an expert in ballistics - was the bullet fired at close or far range and such things.

Next to the points. The more specific ones.

(1) It is guided by natural law;

I am indifferent as to whether a statement that God omnipotent did a certain thing is labelled "science" or "philosophy" - if it is admissible in science, fine, if not, I ask scientists to not impinge on philosophy.

The idea that all that is and happens is there or happens because of "natural law," (the phrase actually means something different), or because of constants or processes described by natural laws (like Ohm's law or a Maxwell equation) is what in philosophy is called "materialism" it is one school and not the only one, it is also a false school. Scientists who are amateur philosophers and confessional atheists shall not have the audacity to first dismiss all philosophical objections to materialism by "we are doing science, not philosophy" and then turn around and do bad philosophy while pretending to do science.

The conclusion that some thing or even ultimately every thing is there or happens for a reason not reducible to either natural laws or more properly causalities described by such is one that one must be able to reach.

Otherwise this first criterium violates criterium "(5) Its is falsifiable" - very blatantly.

(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;

Synonymous to previous.

(3) It is testable against the empirical world;

Materialism isn't.

Any explanation that explains parts of the empirical world, which includes the fact we have consciousness and the fact we reason and the fact we make moral judgements, and a lot of historic allegations, such that Hume cannot safely state that absence of miracles is an empirical given, it's just that Hume was ignorant of empirical history, any explanation that explains parts of it, is ipso facto testable - if it explains what is there, and doesn't explain sth which according to it should be there and isn't.

Materialism isn't testable against the empirical world, since it ignores:

• the fact we have consciousness
• the fact we reason
• the fact we make moral judgements
• a lot of historic allegations,

Or rather, is refuted by these.

(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word;

Unlike the philosophical part, and the theological part ... well, can science know its limits?

Apparently not.

Some want to state:

• "God created" is part of a religious dogmatic system
• religious dogmatic systems are not science
• therefore "God created" is not science
• therefore science must discuss the question as if "God didn't create"

Which for one obviously conflates "science" with "any discipline that deals with objective reality" and on top of that conflates "being part of a religious dogmatic system" with "being a religious dogmatic system" ... again, if science is only for things that are non-final (which would mean Mathematics is no science, since it is final that 2 + 2 = 4), so be it, provided that one accepts other disciplines having the capacity to make final decisions. AND those other disciplines dealing with the natural world. AND they would be relevant for science class, since "natural science" as a school subject is more concerned with the observable constants in the natural world, and less with the philosophical minutiae about how we arrive at truths about them. Note, I don't pretend it would be totally irrelevant, in fact, I think too little is stated in specific cases on how people with the status of scientist arrive at certain conclusions. But this five point rigmarole programme has probably been repeated more than once in science classes after January 5, 1982.

But the worst equivocation is obviously pushing one answer outside the subject and pretending its opposite is to be assumed as true inside the subject. Affirming and negating a thing answer the same question, and the subject matters are about the questions. The very idea of science is against this way of deciding a fact question based on a pure formality.

(5) Its is falsifiable.

If nothing existed, God existing would be falsified. We wouldn't be there to do the falsification, but it would be falsified. Again, if nothing except God existed, "God created" would be falsified. We wouldn't be there to do the falsification, but it would be falsified, and God would do the falsification.

If no minds existed, it would be falsified to say "we have minds because God gave us them" - we wouldn't be there to make the falsification, but it would be falsified.

So, lots of bad or ambiguous criteria are on top of that shoddily applied in that judgement - because the judge refused to treat expert witnesses as if they were themselves on trial. He bowed down to them, as if they were his judges.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alexis Falconieri
17.II.2023

Florentiae natalis sancti Alexii Falconerii Confessoris, e septem Fundatoribus Ordinis Servorum beatae Mariae Virginis; qui, decimo supra centesimum vitae suae anno, Christi Jesu et Angelorum praesentia recreatus, beato fine quievit. Ipsius tamen ac Sociorum festum pridie Idus Februarii celebratur.

How Much is Genesis 1 - 11

How Much is the Pre-Flood World? · How Much is Genesis 1 - 11

Genesis 11 ends in this verse:

And the days of Thare were two hundred and five years, and he died in Haran.

He was 70 when he had Abram.

205 - 70 = 135.

Flood happened Anno Mundi 2242. Abraham was born 942 after the Flood, Anno Mundi 3184 or 2015 BC.

Add 135 years. Anno Mundi 3319. Christ was born 5199 Anno Mundi, so add 2023 to that, we are Anno Mundi 7222.

3319 / 7222 = 45.957 % - That's how much of Biblical history that you ditch (yes, we are probably close to Apocalypse 19), if you discard Genesis 1 to 11/HGL

Does I Tim. Cite the Gospel of St. Luke as Scripture? Probably Yes.

CMI made a response post* about claims of NT being Scripture in the sense of Sacred Scripture.

The person writing them finished, without this nuance being noted:

There is NOT one passage in the Greek "Bible" where the "writer" of a book in the NT Greek writings claims to be speaking the inspired words of YHWH.

Perhaps he should note that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, YHWH (or JHVH, as one writes in German or Swedish) is given with a circumlocution, "ὁ κύριος" (like the usage of reading Adonai in Hebrew).

But the answer has a very important and somewhat elusive formulation:

The books accepted by the church have the ring of truth and divine authority and are entirely consistent with prior revelation, unlike the Gospel of Thomas, the Qur’an, or the Book of Mormon, for example.

Like the OT books were collected twice over by Kohanim, first by Ezra, then in the Maccabee period (and the Pharisees and Judaism took Ezra's canon, confirmed as exclusive at Jamnia, the Church took the later canon), so the NT books were also collected by someone. By "the church" - well, what Church?

Now, the CMI has a habit of not referring to the authority by which Christ invested His Catholic Church, and as a result, they take cross referencing between Scriptures as important. To me it is so, and that because it confirms the books were accepted by the Catholic Church in stages, as they were written.

One item they give is certain:

For example, Peter recognized Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15–16),

Indeed. But they omit:

in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

A warning against taking just any and every interpretation that passes through one's mind without sooner or later checking with the Church - over the centuries, may I add (some apparent "Catholic authorities" today contradict the teaching of centuries).

The other item, I am less sure:

and Paul quoted Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 together, calling them both Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18).

Here is the verse:

For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

When I searched synonyms for the latter, "The worker deserveth his wages" I found four OT passages that can be resumed so or as The labourer is worthy of his reward.

"And I will come to you in judgment, and will be a speedy witness against sorcerers, and adulterers, and false swearers, and them that oppress the hireling in his wages; the widows, and the fatherless: and oppress the stranger, and have not feared me, saith the Lord of hosts."
[Malachias (Malachi) 3:5]

"If any man hath done any work for thee, immediately pay him his hire, and let not the wages of thy hired servant stay with thee at all."
[Tobias (Tobit) 4:15]

"And every excellent work shall be justified: and the worker thereof shall be honoured therein."
[Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 14:21]

"Thou shalt not calumniate thy neighbour, nor oppress him by violence. The wages of him that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until the morning."
[Leviticus 19:13]

If St. Paul had said here verbatim "it is written" one could not suspect this, since this would clearly indicate a verbatim quote, perhaps composite, but not reduced to resumé, but he said "the scripture saith" - however, it is still probable that it means a verbatim quote, and that the Gospel of St. Luke was already available. Even so, the wording could have been an already traditional resumé of the given teachings, so it was used both by Our Lord in St. Luke, and by St. Paul.

It is also possible that Timothy personally knew Luke and knew of what he was writing, while in progress.

Of him S. Paul is supposed to speak: (2 Cor. viii. 18.) We have sent also with him (Titus) the brother, whose praise is in the gospel, through all churches: and again, Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you: (Coloss. iv.) and, only Luke is with me. 2 Tim. iv. Some are of opinion that as often as S. Paul, in his Epistles, says according to my gospel, he speaks of the Gospel of S. Luke.

This is from the Haydock comment Preface to the Gospel of St. Luke. Nevertheless, here are dates from Haydock comment for St. Luke and for 1 Timothy, the first same source as above:

This evangelist did not learn his gospel from S. Paul only, (who had never been with our Lord in the flesh) but from the other apostles also, as himself informs us in the beginning of his gospel, when he says, according as they have delivered them unto us; who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses, (autoptai) and ministers of the word. His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that S. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world. It does not appear, as Calmet observes, that he had ever read the gospels of S. Matt. and S. Mark.

Here is the Preface to 1 Timothy:

S. Paul passing through Lycaonia, about the year 51, some of the brethren at Derbe or Lystra recommended to him a disciple, by name Timothy, who from his infancy had studied the Holy Scriptures. S. Paul took him, making him his companion and fellow-labourer in the gospel: and not to offend the Jews, who could not be ignorant that Timothy's father was a Gentile, he caused him to be circumcised. Afterwards he ordained him bishop of Ephesus. Wi. — S. Paul writes this epistle to his beloved Timothy, to instruct him in the duties of a bishop, both in respect to himself and to his charge; and that he ought to be well informed of the good morals of those on whom he was to impose hands: Impose not hands lightly upon any man. He tells him also how he should behave towards his clergy. This epistle was written about thirty-three years after our Lord's ascension; but where it was written is uncertain: the more general opinion is, that it was in Macedonia. Ch. — After his epistles to the Churches, now follow those to particular persons; to Timothy and Titus, who were bishops, and to Philemon. Timothy was the beloved disciple of S. Paul, whom he frequently styles his son; but it is not certain that they were at all related. After having accompanied the apostle in many of his travels, the latter at last ordained him bishop, and fixed him permanently at Ephesus. Shortly after he wrote him this epistle, to instruct him in the episcopal duties, as he was but young for those great functions. He might be then about thirty-five. He mentions, likewise, in short the chief heresies which were then making mischief at Ephesus, and gives regulations and instructions for different states of persons in the Church. S. Timothy, who had been so long the disciple of S. Paul, and who never left him except when ordered by his master, could not be ignorant of his duties, but it was destined for the use of bishops of every age. Hence S. Austin says that such as are destined to serve the Church, should have continually before their eyes the two epistles to Timothy and that to Titus.

So, St. Paul and St. Timothy came to know each other in AD 51, before the Gospel of St. Luke was ready, but this epistle is much later, I'll cite it again so you don't miss it:

This epistle was written about thirty-three years after our Lord's ascension; but where it was written is uncertain: the more general opinion is, that it was in Macedonia. Ch.

Ch = Challoner. 33 + 33 = 66. The epistle was written around a decade after the Gospel, and therefore, yes, St. Paul is giving an actual quote from it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Scholastica of Monte Casino
10.II.2023

Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

* Does the New Testament claim to be God’s Word?
Feedback archive → Feedback 2015
https://creation.com/new-testament-gods-word

Can Genesis 1 to 11 be Contrasted with Genesis 12 to 50? And One More.

In one way yes. I have alrady stated elsewhere, Genesis 3 was transmitted orally, minimally from Sarug to Abraham (or young Abram, since this was before God changed his name), maximally all the way from Adam to Moses.

Here is the final comment on Genesis 3 by Haydock:

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

As I use the chronology of the Roman martyrology reading, there would be more years and more minimally overlapping generations, but this is an option. For my own part, I think it could have been written down as early as by Abraham, since he had the opportunity to store written material in his Beduin tribe and this opportunity was never broken after his time.

So, Genesis 2:6 to Genesis 11 were first transmitted orally, Genesis 12 to fifty were written down soon after the facts. This holds whether Genesis 3 was orally redacted by Adam, and transmitted like the Iliad from Homer to the time of Peisistratus, or whether Adam wrote, or even Abel wrote, since a lost book of probably cumulative chronicles is "the book of Yasher" or "of the Just" and Abel is called the just, and Sarug read it, but couldn't show it to young Abram, and therefore transmitted it orally to him. This is a contrast between the two.

Another type of contrast is often made. Here is a screenshot from quora:

Normally, I would have joined the fray and commented there, and shared the debate on Assorted Retorts, much as I did with most of:

Factuality of the Bible: answering Earnest Farr · Guestpost · answering Dick Harfield · Answer on Acts (to Dick Harfield)

But Dick Harfield found my non-compliance with his academia worship too much for him to argue with, and blocked me from commenting, and as you can see from the screenshot, I am still disabled from adding comments.

So much so, not only I can't add a comment directly under Dick Harfield's words, but also not under Peter Biro's.

So, this is another contrast between Peter Biro's view of Genesis 1 to 11, and his view of Genesis 12 to 50. The first is, on his view, non-historical, does not compute, is not strictly historical. The latter is.

If Genesis 1 to 11 is dismissed on the grounds that:

• the world is supposedly much older than 7222 years (by AD 2023),
• life diversity and humanity came around by evolutive processes,
• language diversity came around only by processes of natural language change and no initial split into many required or possible ...

... then there will follow severe problems with the rest.

• with millions of years (and the time for evolution), there is no chance that carbon 14 levels were so low by Genesis 14 that a real 1935 BC is carbon dated as 3500 BC
• but without them, you need separate creations of life forms (not on individual present species level, but say families or subfamilies like hedgehogs)
• without them you very definitely need Adam created separately
• without them, you need a global flood to account for fossils
• without them and with a global flood, you need a speeding up of the language split in post-Flood humanity.

So, without YEC for Genesis 1 to 11, neither any historicity for Genesis 14. This gets very much worse, if you push Abraham's birth to a 2015 BC within an Old Earth, rather than a Young Earth scheme, and consequently carbon dates being not just relatively but also close to absolutely correct, you will search for Abraham in carbon dated 1900's - 2000's BC - and not find him. You will search for the Exodus in carbon dated 1460 BC, if you follow that chronology, and have problems to match it up with Egyptian chronology, which for this period is New Kingdom and better documented than previous times. Though, in fairness, a certain video I saw involved a good argument that not even in New Kingdom would an Exodus have been recorded and preserved in the material we find, since the material we find are nearly exclusively funerary monuments, offered to the gods for the wellbeing of a pharao in the hereafter, and as such would have omitted all reference to calamities for ritual reasons.

So, no, the contrast breaks down.

That's for Peter Biro, who would deserve a long answer. Dick Harfield deserves a shorter one, so here is one more.

If Genesis isn't scientifically accurate but claims to be, then this helps explain why it is not historically accurate either.

No, it doesn't. Being scientifically literate is not a prerequisite for recording history. We do not dismiss Egyptian historic records out of hand, just because they involve references to gods that Dick Harfield and I agree don't exist. If a text says "... and the other gods fought with the Egyptian army and it was victorious" I will take the gods fighting with the army as an interpretation made in the light of their world view, and I will take the victorious Egyptian army as historical. In some cases historically faked. Someone pointed out that a series of victories against the Hittites, plotted on the map, reads like a retreat rather than as an advance, but that is as it may - it was meant to be read as (lying) statements about historic fact, not to be reas as fiction for entertainment.

... Genesis is simply a compilation of folk lore, legends and ancient myths. It is not a record of events or real persons.

Dick Harfield has consistently in the past failed to argue why "folk lore, legends and ancient myths" would not be "a record of events or real persons" - I'd disagree on it even about Pagan myth, as stated here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Matt Dillahunty Spoke of a Problem in Evangelical Usage of Terms
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/02/matt-dillahunty-spoke-of-problem-in.html

Dick Harfield won't have this answer directly communicated from me, since I can't comment under his answers, but I will try to reach Peter Biro.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril of Alexandria
9.II.2023

PS, if you want to visit the question on quora: What if Genesis isn't scientifically accurate? where I have already answered some other guys, which is shared on Assorted Retorts./HGL