lundi 22 janvier 2018

Debating Göbekli Tepe as Tower of Babel


Kevin Bruce
Status in group
How high was the tower of bable before it fell? Also, where was the tower?

Jon Learen
Plain of Shinar. Size unknown, nor does it matter.

Kevin Bruce
Can you show it on a modern map?

Jon Learen
Idk where in modern Iraq that may be.

Kevin Bruce
So... No satalite photo?

Whitney Eslick Manuel
Babel...B-a-b-e-l.

Kevin Bruce
S-h-o-w--i-t--o-n--a--m-a-p

Hans-Georg Lundahl
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...
Gobekli Tepe
Ancient site near Urfa, Turkey



https://www.google.fr/maps/place/G%C3%B6beklitepe,+Da%C4%9Fete%C4%9Fi+Mahallesi,+63290+Haliliye%2F%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa,+Turquie/@37.2127828,39.3677901,9.33z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x15346502fe912231:0x24d422700430381a!8m2!3d37.2170459!4d38.8542544

Kevin Bruce
Doesn't look like a tower.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you followed my other comments here [see below, but earlier, also I think other thread], I am not claiming the tower left any ruins there.

I am claiming "a tower THE TOP OF WHICH reaches into heaven" describes a three step rocket.

The Bible says they ceased to build the city, and Göbekli Tepe has been deliberately covered up after abandonment.

Obviously, if I am right, the ones covering up Göbekli Tepe would have had a motive to remove all traces of the rocket as such.

Also, it is fairly possible that baked bricks of Göbekli Tepe were removed to a later construction - supposing the carbon dating is skewed by a rising carbon level and that there were really just centuries to the oldest constructions with baked bricks that we find.

Ty McCullough
It was in Iraq. Which is why our army took it over. The wierdo's want to rebuild babylon and the wierdo's control everything

Jack Stargel
It was on the Plains of Shinar in Iraq, a stone's throw from where Saddam Hussein built his main residential compound.

Kevin Bruce
So.... You should be able to show it on a map, yes?

Jack Stargel
Sure, and so could you with a little effort.

John Edgar Erasmus
How high it was is irrelevant, the point was mans rebellion in that they did not populate the earth. They stayed in one place, after the babel event the worlds first "global" government collapsed

Kyle Rutherford
There was no babel event.

John Edgar Erasmus
Ok

Kevin Bruce
Great John, but I actually asked. I want to know if the story is real. It seems we should be able to point to debris from this massive structure.

John Edgar Erasmus
Kevin Bruce.
There is no guarantee that the structure would still be standing as later peoples could have used it for building materials. If it was Gods will to have that piece in the Bible, I believe it.

If your looking for evidence of other Biblical events such as the 10 plaques in Egypt or the Red Sea crossing you won't need to look far as the BBC have documentaries on this.

Kevin Bruce
So you can't find it? When structures fall down some of the building materials break. Where is the rubble?

John Edgar Erasmus
Kevin Bruce .
I haven't looked and have no intention on looking for it.

We all know where the rubble of the twin towers are ( no offense)

To be honest with you I am past the "prove it stage" of my faith. Evolution vs Creation.....

The self replicating, error correcting storage and retrieval molecule we call DNA has closed that chapter for me.

My next phase is getting to know the word and the application thereof.

Kevin Bruce
Thanks for being no help at all.

Andrew Owen
Babel I think you mean🤣 you can read all about in Genesis ch 11

Kevin Bruce
Yes I can but sadly the Bible doesn't have any satalite pictures...

John Edgar Erasmus
But does call the globe a sphere, gives a clear indication of electricity and the hydrological cycle

Kevin Bruce
Does it now?

Wonder why the growth in biblical flat Earth...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Biblical flat earth is probably Talmudic flat earth - because Jews are converting.

John Edgar Erasmus
Kevin Bruce cause they haven't read Isaiah

Kevin Bruce
The word Chung comes to mind...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Chug.

Randy Frazier
The Tower of Babel FOUND?
URcall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiqezYFBUdA


[Find out what Greek historian Herodotus recorded about the Tower of Babel. Visit http://urcall.org/learn/ for more "Small Videos. Big Facts," about creation science.]

Kevin Bruce
That was basically useless.

Randy Frazier
Not.

Kevin Bruce
It's a minute long and doesn't answer any of my questions.

Randy Frazier
Some Very Compelling Evidence the Tower of Babel Was Real
Smithsonian Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgksU2F18lg


[Biblical scholars have long debated whether the Tower of Babel really existed. Now, a remarkable stone tablet never before shown on film appears to settle that question.]

Nimrod and the Tower of Babel
Truth Center
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzE6Hr83jG0


[The Bible speaks of Nimrod being a great ruler on Earth after the flood. Nimrod was connected to ancient gods and bloodlines all through the Nephilim placing himself in this Nephilim/Anti-Christ. If you have a video idea then comment down below and if you want to see more videos then check out my channel and subscribe.]

More Curious is the question of How many names did the Evil King Nimrod=Gilgamesh=Nebachanezer, have? The Tower has been FOUND.

Derrick Hood
There are many ruins which people have claimed were the Tower of Babel, but the consensus is that the structure which best fits the description is a structure called the Ziggurat of Eridu.

Randy Frazier
SAME THING. lol

The Sumerians are not More Ancient than the Flood of Noah's Time that was World Wide. lol They just SAY that to ATTEMPT to discredit the Scriptures of the REAL His Story of the Universe and everything in it.

Most likely the Tower of Babel was akin to what they are doing with the CERN Facilities now a days.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"How high was the tower of bable before it fell?"

It doesn't say it fell:

[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. [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.

It also doesn't say they ceased to build the tower, just that they ceased to build the city.

My hunch is, the tower of which the top reaches into heaven describes a three step rocket.

It is an invention which recently has gone very high above us - the "top of the tower" that is - from Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur.

I think Nimrod was hoping to use Uranium for rocket fuel, which is why God sent the ice age to cover up Uranium mines of Canada.

I think he knew of Uranium from bombings having happened in a pre-Flood Mahabharata like war.

When the more recent tries were made, for one thing, the rocket fuel was less dangerous, and for another, humanity being already dispersed and multiplied, we didn't risk any more to make rockets a one world dictator's project.

Hence, it has gone very high very recently.

" Also, where was the tower?"

I got this hunch when someone had described features of Göbekli Tepe as a "rocket ramp".

So, my vote goes to Göbekli Tepe.

Randy Frazier
Lol. Nope. It was Gilgamesh=Babel. The City that Nimrod Founded.

That lies in Iraq. It does not mean there was only 1 though. The CERN Facilities they are attempting to breach the Veil with today are all over the World.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" Can you show it on a modern map?"

Any thing between Euphrates and Tigris after they have flown down from the mountains.

Göbekli Tepe fits that bill, even if it is not Iraq, but eastern Turkey.

Also, to Randy Frazier, Babel here and Babel = Babylon are not same Hebrew word, just homophones.

"Gilgamesh=Babel."

Gilgamesh is not even a place, but a hero, possibly Nimrod, but certainly NOT a place he founded.

Derrick Hood, " There are many ruins which people have claimed were the Tower of Babel,"

While it only says the city was ceased from being built.

Not that the tower left any ruins.

"but the consensus is that the structure which best fits the description is a structure called the Ziggurat of Eridu."

It's top reaches into heaven only optically, if you view it from the foot.

BUT in the case of rockets, the top reaches into heaven physically.

Ziggurat of Eridu ...

"Amar-Sin's reign is notable for his attempt at regenerating the ancient sites of Sumer. He apparently worked on the unfinished ziggurat at Eridu.[4] Eridu was abandoned during his reign [reference needed]"

Two problems :

  • 1) he is named in and spoke Sumerian, a post-Babel language
  • 2) if anything in it is carbon dated to c. 2000 BC, this is a carbon date way too recent for the real dates of Babel according to my tables of carbon rise.


Richard Ray
These towers to heaven or to the heavens were probably the worship of heavenly bodies such as the planets. Ziggurats containing levels that correlate to the planets may be examples of these temples where the practice of worshiping these heavenly bodies were actually called "temples to the heavens". Check out the Ziggurats of Ur, etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" Ziggurats"

Ziggurat of Ur is impossible, unless pre-Babel language was Sumerian, which I think very unlikely.

Give one Ziggurat which is dated to earlier than any Sumerian text tablets.

Kevin Bruce
Richard Ray the problem with that theory is that as far as we can tell the outer planets were not known to these peoples.

Richard Ray
They knew about 8 of the planets. They were called wandering stars. They were objects of curiosity and heavenly bodies that were worshiped, sought out by astrologers and read as similar to comets as having significance as they passed through the constellations. You can see 8 planets with the naked eye in a dark place well away from city lights.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"as far as we can tell the outer planets were not known to these peoples."

So?

1) Moon, 2) Mercury, 3) Venus, 4) Sun, 5) Mars, 6) Jupiter, 7) Saturn, 8) Fix Stars.

Of these only the last is not a planet - in the old sense of the word.

Richard Ray
I'm pretty sure that they knew about Neptune and Uranus. Uranus is definitely visible to the unaided eye and I myself have found it by eye so that I could line up my telescope get close before starting my alignment. Neptune is more difficult but there is no reason to believe that it cannot be seen if it is dark enough. L’image contient peut-être : nuit L’image contient peut-être : nuit, ciel et plein air
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Uranus is normally not visible to the unaided eye, perhaps you had long photo exposure.

Or mislabelled another celestial body as Uranus.

Richard Ray
I recall seeing it and then tracking it in a challenge from Astrology mag or blog. Similar to this one on Neptune which I have never seen with the unaided eye.https://astrobob.areavoices.com/.../astro-challenge-night/ Astro Challenge Night You can use this map to help you spot the tool bag tonight (Dec. 3). Times are shown every… astrobob.areavoices.com I'm pretty sure this was the night give or take that I found Uranus with the unaided eye and then the telescope. http://kool1079.com/this-week-is-the-best-time-to-see.../ I remember the greenish hue when viewed with the telescope and I'm sure that the line up was scaled correctly by the computerized finder I use. I used a two star alignment after being centered and leveled on true north. Then I told the computer to find Uranus and it scanned right to the planet I was looking at, having done a little gazing before entering the search into the "goto" computer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"For our second challenge, we return to Neptune. This one’s a double-edged sword because we’ll use the moon to find the planet, but the moon’s brightness may make it harder to see. Still, we’re only talking a crescent moon, so maybe Neptune will survive the glare.

"If you have binoculars with 50mm lenses or larger, it’s definitely worth a try."

With binoculars = NOT with the naked eye.

"This week, the planet Uranus is only 1.77 billion miles from earth. Believe it or not, that’s close enough to see it. Normally, Uranus can barely be seen with the naked eye on a very dark, clear night. The tricky part is having a dark enough sky – and knowing exactly where to look. This week gives us an even better chance to see Uranus, due to it’s “close” proximity to earth."

Granted - but also said to be exceptional.

Richard Ray
But imagine how dark the sky was in ancient times. You know, no city lights anywhere. I'd imagine in North Korea you can see Uranus any time you look up in the night....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except you missed the point that one must also know where to look.

Richard Ray
If, under a very dark sky, an object is seen in a constellation that is not always in the same place in that constellation, it is a roaming star and people who watch the sky will take note of that "roaming star" once it's been noticed. Once it's noticed, it is now known where to look and to take note of where it is now.

So we now know that:

  • 1. It can be seen with the naked eye under very dark skies.
  • 2. The ancients looked for "roaming stars" because they held beliefs that these "roaming stars" had meaningful movements.
  • 3. Once a "roaming star" was noticed, it was tracked by astrologers who's job it was to know where all the "roaming stars" were.


It is not reasonable to say that because the skies aren't usually dark enough today and they weren't dark enough in the past to 1. notice, 2. watch and track, such objects of interest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" If, under a very dark sky, an object is seen in a constellation that is not always in the same place in that constellation, it is a roaming star and people who watch the sky will take note of that "roaming star" once it's been noticed." - Key word, once it has been noticed.

Uranus if known back then would need to have been forgotten in the meantime.

Richard Ray
And you're saying you know that Uranus was not known even though it could be seen and the ancients were interested in tracking such objects. You may be right. But I'm not as sure as you seem to be that the planet (roaming star) was not observed.

Ancient Ziggurats - Background Bible Study (Bible History Online) http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/ziggurats.html

[The Ziggurat was a word which means "mountain top" and in the ancient world it was a pyramid which was constructed in stages, with a Temple at the top. It was believed that the gods dwelt at the top and they called this "The Mountain Of The World." The Gods dwelt at the peak of the mountain top and strangely enough the colors of each stage of the Ziggurat were the seven different colors of the rainbow.]

[Personal warning of site : ties in table of nations with race theories not its object.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Do you mean because of "The great Ziggurat of the Seven Spheres"?

1) Moon, 2) Mercury, 3) Venus, 4) Sun, 5) Mars, 6) Jupiter, 7) Saturn.

No Uranus needed.

Richard Ray
Yes those Ziggurats. They actually have enough levels to represent 8 planets. There are some who claim at least on outer planet. They have 8 levels and the in 18th Century the levels or spheres were assigned to 7. I'm fully aware of that research and the claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
8 levels? 8th one could represent fix stars.

Richard Ray
All beside the point. No need to rehash assignments. The facts are to be interpreted and you interpret the fact that even thought the planet could be seen, it was alas never seen. Good enough. We don't agree.

|9 level Ziggurat
L’image contient peut-être : ciel, nuage et plein air|


Hans-Georg Lundahl
[on nine level ziggurat] Star[t]ing with atmosphere, I suppose.

Look, ziggurats are very interesting but I don't think Tower of Babel was one of them.

Kevin Bruce
Looks small compared to the pyramids...

Hans is of the view that Noah's decendents were astronauts or at least attempted a space program...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Key word : attempted.

Richard Ray
And in the mean time using 7 stair Ziggurats to prove no one ever noticed Uranus. But there were Ziggs with more steps.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Richard Ray, the seven sphere ziggurat was from your link.

Even the nine step ziggurat involves no clear proof Uranus was noticed.

Kevin Bruce
I am sure Nimrod would have failed, where Cape Canaveral succeeded : Uranium is no good rocket fuel just because it is good bomb material (and yes, I think atomic bombs were used in a pre-Flood war best reflected as to details in Mahabharata).

Kevin Bruce
Hans-Georg Lundahl what language did god destroy exactly then? The language of science? You need science for a space program? But science isn't simply speech but also ideas and methods

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Kevin Bruce "what language did god destroy exactly then?"

In all speakers? None. In most of them : Hebrew. It was preserved in such as refused to obey Nimrod. Very few.

"The language of science? You need science for a space program?"

And I think Nimrod had insufficient science to succeed with his space program.

"But science isn't simply speech but also ideas and methods"

And by interrupting a premature project, it could mature a bit over millennia and bear fruit very recently - perhaps ushering in the end times.

Randy Frazier
Lol. WOW is all I am gonna say. Off to plant some things so I can Give Food away this Harvest time.

Josh Crystal Withe
God knew their plans and confounded their plans, who said they ever got past the making bricks stage? Or ever even laid the complete foundation? Ruins like that would be buried under many feet of dirt now, and even more dirt and trash if a city was built there later.

Randy Frazier
Hans-Georg Lundahl if Gilgamesh was not REAL then how did they find the City AND the Giant Ruler NAMED "Gilgamesh/Nimrod"? lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl
But there is not any CITY called Gilgamesh!

He was a RULER. His city was called URUK!

I am not in the least disputing the recent identification of Gilgamesh with Nimrod, it would be like Nimrod to first try and visit Noah and then brag about things which never occurred in the visit!

And also, Gilgamesh being a giant does fit Nimrod who "began to be a giant".

BUT, I happen to know the Gilgamesh story too well to think it was the name of a city.

Sean Ovis
Just as a matter of interest, the tower of Babel was built how many years after a cataclysmic global extinction event which destroyed every inch of the planet and left it a festering wilderness of mud, rubble, decomposing bodies, stinking fish and decaying vegetable matter?

Richard Ray
Depends on how you read the genealogies of Genesis. Probably 400 years or so.

Sean Ovis
so, about 1900 BCE?

Richard Ray
I'd have to look it up when I'm off work. I don't want to be called on this. Just talking off the top of my head. Wait a minute and I'll look for something I was researching last month.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Depending on diverging Biblical Chronologies for birth of Peleg, you can date start of building to 101 or 529 after Flood or some in between, + 5 years after he was born.

According to one tradition.

Note, the identification with Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe I am doing involves carbon 14 level having been so low that a Tower of Babel c. 2204 BC (Ussher) or XV 2780 BC (Syncellus) is misdated, carbon level back then 49.459 pmc, carbon dated year 8600 BC.

For end of GT or dispersion from Babel.

Richard Ray
Something to consider: I have this marked for further study.

Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?
NathanH83
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE


[This is a video explaining whether or not the Egyptian pyramids were built before the flood of Noah's day. It also deals with Issues with the accuracy of the Hebrew Masoretic text verses the Greek Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Tower of Babel, the age of the Earth, an extra Cainan in Jesus' genealogy, and the identity of Melchizedek - not in that particular order.]

[Before completing this article, I wathed and commented on the video, here is article with my comments and answering two of Nathan's objections:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Pyramids, Flood, Babel, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/06/pyramids-flood-babel-lxx-dead-sea.html
]

Sean Ovis
Why would anyone think that Gobekli Tepi was in any way related to Babel? It looks nothing like a tower, not even the base of a tower, and the complex hasn't been demolished; the complex was built on successively by different generations.

And recently, haven't the carvings on the stones been assocciated with astronomical phenomena?

| http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../ancient-stone-carvings.../
L’image contient peut-être : plein air|


Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It looks nothing like a tower,"

Tell me more! Is water wet too?

That very pit looks like a rocket ramp, and the tower, if it had been finished, would have been a rocket.

"the complex hasn't been demolished"

However, covered.

"the complex was built on successively by different generations."

In my recalibration there are in fact just 40 years to the diverse levels of it.

"And recently, haven't the carvings on the stones been assocciated with astronomical phenomena?"

Unfortunately, I think their stellarium software has been used for the wrong year.

Sean Ovis
This is the aerial view.

It really does not look like these buildings are going to be supporting that much. I mean they are net even laid out symmetrically.

| L’image contient peut-être : plein air |

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is a pit where the rocket could have been placed and another one where people on ground could take shelter while the take off lasted.

Inadequate. Nimrod only knew the Uranium explosions from rumours, he had never seen one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and another one"

Make that other ones, plural.

Sean Ovis
//Their is a pit where the rocket could have been placed and another one where people on ground could take shelter while the take off lasted.//

I think I have a picture of them:

[Picture of three persons in tin foil hats, pun or pique received.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, when rational arguments are wanting or fail, ridicule is available.

Shall we try to get back and see if your rational arguments were failing on me or were lacking for you?

How do you test a claim like :

  • 1) Göbekli Tepe was arranged in order to serve as a rocket ramp
  • 2) but never did because God intervened
  • 3) and so we see remains of the ramp (minus baked bricks taken away later), but no rocket, alias no tower


whether this is false or true?

My test is : does it fit the Bible or contradict it, does it fit other material or contradict it?

I think it fits fairly well. Your turn!

Curtis Curtlegger Ensley
Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?
by Anne Habermehl on March 23, 2011
https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/


Sean Ovis
Hans-Georg Lundahl

I refer you to Genesis 11

"3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

Is Gobekli Tepi made out of bricks?

No.

| L’image contient peut-être : plein air |

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Curtis Curtlegger Ensley - I have corresponded with Anne Habermehl, and we disagree on many things.

I think she is putting ToB way too early in comparison to archaeology.

Hence its disappearance.

But she actually mentions GT's neighbour Urfa /Edessa being in Shinar:

// Also, in the ancient Turkish city of Edessa, now called Sanliurfa or Urfa (Grant 1997, p. 229), Nebo was one of the main two gods from very early times. (Drijvers 1980, pp. 40–75) says that “Nebo holds the first place and evidently is Edessa’s most venerated god.” Sanliurfa is in a plain about 50 km (31 miles) north of Harran, just north of the Turkish border, east of the Euphrates River (Heritage 2004, p. 143). This puts Sanliurfa within Shinar, and we therefore could consider it as a candidate for the place in Shinar where Nebuchadnezzar might have left his loot. //

To do her justice, I have no refutation about her idea about Tell Brak and area.

Kevin Bruce
This is halarious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Glad you like it!

How about the truth value, probable or reverse? And why?

Kevin Bruce
?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Btw, going over a thing you wrote earlier:

"what language did god destroy exactly then? The language of science? You need science for a space program? But science isn't simply speech but also ideas and methods"

One of the methods is cooperation between many.

Say you have ten thousand scientists in diverse fields, or even just a thousand. Then they break up in 72 groups, and now each group has 14 members - imagine the technology loss!

Kevin Bruce
So.... These peoples were smart enough to start a space program but could not figure out how to overcome a language barrier???

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) They were not smart enough to start a valid space program, but stupid enough to rush into a badly planned one;
  • 2) This was mankind's very first experience of a language barrier, all grammars and translations and stuff we have now had to be developed since.


[To Sean Ovis
we'll see if he catches up:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Is Gobekli Tepi made out of bricks?"

Already adressed that. GT has been deliberately covered, and the bricks could have been removed during that process.

Imagine superstitious pagans with a great sense of "mascots" using bricks from Göbekli Tepe, the project of the Great Architect Nimrod, for future building projects.

In conventional carbon dating some millennia later, but in the recalibration actually only a few centuries later.

Bricks would be as removed as meat from a carcass eaten by ants.

On Geocentrism, Peer Review, Sungenis and Pearlman


AM
Any evidence that the Earth is the center of our solar system or this is just a pseudoscience group?

I
Roger M Pearlman
I think a good chance Earth was the literal center until sometime day 3, see SPIRAL's 'SNAP' hypothesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why would there even be a "snap"?

What's stopping Earth from still being the centre right now?

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl per SPIRAL's 'SNAP' hypothesis we were at one time , sometime ending day 3, the literal center of what is now the sun. we were snapped out like a solar flare by electro-magnetic radiation. obviously we are no longer the center of the sun, which acts like a central heating system for us among other things. so too we and the sun may have been snapped from the center of our Galaxy to a more optimal spot by or before day 4.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, sounds exotic.

According to Geocentrism, we were and are the centre of the Universe and God Himself provided light for three days, the Created Sun on day four, above us.

Roger M Pearlman
Yes we are still the center of the universe, but now the sun is inside of us (our Earth-Sun ecliptic orbit..) instead of our being the center of it. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why?

Why would Sun be "inside our Earth-Sun ecliptic orbit"?

Do you have any proof or are you just following what you learned in school?

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl each year we do a loop around the sun w//it being about 93M miles toward the center, no?

that is how we do parallax..

to measure objects w/in x light years

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And if instead it is the sun which each year lags behind a full circle against the motion of aether around Earth?

Then the known distance is not one involved in any triangle involving any stars. They are not reflecting Sunlight.

This in turn means, we have no parallax (the Bessel phenomenon being misnamed so, but being another thing), and stars could be one or two light DAYS above us.

One or two light DAYS.

"You know, light has a fixed speed. If a star is 13.5 billion light years away, it shone 13.5 billion light years ago"

Yes, but if it is really no further up than 1 light DAY, it means it shone 24 hours ago. Or 23 hours 55 minutes and 4 seconds ago.

Do you see any difference in implications about Young Earth Creationism?

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl sounds like a legit alternate hypothesis if and until true falsification, that should get serious consideration. as should SPIRAL. The advantage of SPIRAL not only does it explain why distant starlight can align w/ 6k rounded years, it shows why the overwhelming empirical evidence assuming the cosmological redshift of distant starlight is real (as doe SCM and SPIRAL) falsifies all deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The advantage of Geocentrism with angelic movers is, you don't have that distant starlight to account for.

Also makes aliens very moot.

"If astronomers supposing it 1400 ly away say it is 5 times the volume of earth, that means it is in each dimension approximately 1.7 times the volume of Earth. However, if you divide this by 1400 to reduce to one light year and then further by 365 to reduce to one light day, you get a very small fraction, which multiplied with 12600 km as diameter of Earth give you a diameter of Kepler 452b as 41 meters and 91 centimeters. I checked on a converter to get 137.5 ft, that is 137 ft and six inches."

How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report (comments' section)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-big-is-kepler-452-geocentric.html


Good luck trying to explain how aliens evolved on that small globe!

Roger M Pearlman
OK but SPIRAL also explains why we are the center of the universe, have by far the optimal view of the entire universe, that the entire universe is visible (the visible universe approximates the entire universe, all agree we are by the center of the visible thus the entire universe, that there is no visible starlight that had a departure point beyond 5778 years to date, ire the years elapsed subsequent to the end of the day 4 cosmic inflation expansion event...:)

so YeC science, Deep-time doctrine, assumptions, premise.. not valid science as falsified by the overwhelming empirical evidence that is the prevalent cosmological redshift of distant starlight (assuming real and that light speed limited to the speed of light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
With some more exotic assumptions on the side of SPIRAL.

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl yet SPIRAL is/makes a far lesser claim than the current Standard Cosmological Model! (SCM)

We both agree in real science the greater the claim the greater the burden of proof! Thus SCM has a far greater burden of proof than either of our models!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, that is certainly true.

The proof for mine is mainly ocular evidence along with that of inner ears.

The only disproof would be proving God and angels do not exist.

II
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Any evidence that the Earth is the center of our solar system"

Hmmmm ... of the visible universe.

Look up in the sky. A few days and a few nights. You see the heavenly bodies revolving from East to West. You can reckon on the other side of the earth they are also revolving from East to West, which would look like from West to East if you could look down through the earth and see it, because next day they are back.

"or this is just a pseudoscience group?"

I would say, the burden of evidence is clearly (after what I just mentioned, you can check it yourself any day you want) on the Heliocentric side, those saying Earth moves.

III
AM
Anything peer reviewed?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So, you believe in the superstition of peer review?

Like, a Geocentric has proven nothing as long as he hasn't got his article published after Peer review by Heliocentrics?

Gimmi a break!

AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl why isn’t this geocentric earth common knowledge?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look up in the sky, then study human cosmology over centuries and over geography.

The why is simple : a century of compulsory schooling a k a brainwashing.

AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl brainwashing? I would rather trust generations of scientists such as Galileo, newton, bacon and all modern astronomers rather than an internet blogger.

The reason peer review exist is to ensure that all stupid claims are tested and then thrown out. That’s what happened to geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
AM "I would rather trust generations of scientists such as Galileo, newton, bacon and all modern astronomers rather than an internet blogger."

Even while Galileo, Newton and Bacon all lacked certain knowledge we have? Including the internet blogger?

While "all modern astronomers" are into a mold, because if you don't accept that clue, you are not allowed to do the observational science at the institutions?

"The reason peer review exist"

Is a kind of Communism, yes. If you mean pre-publishing.

As to post-publishing, it has not debunked either Sungenis or me.

"is to ensure that all stupid claims are tested and then thrown out."

Sounds like what your science teacher would have told you some while ago.

With many people parrotting that, one can consider some masses as more or less brainwashed, not saying it is necessarily your own case.

"That’s what happened to geocentrism."

Sorry, it is not. Your history of science sucks badly. Books claiming that Columbus was up against a clergy that believed as dogma the Earth was flat are not history, they are historical novels.

If you think the kinds of science that are relevant to plumbing are comparable, you are wrong.

You won't bungle any house's drains by being wrong on what heavenly body is one and what is centre of universe and therefore not heavenly.

Precisely as you won't get the wrong water pressure by being wrong about age of the earth.

The kinds of disciplines that are relevant to plumbing are such that peer review also really works (mostly). You can in practise test what is being said, and what doesn't work can be thrown out until it is modified in a way that works.

JH
AM in Sungenis books you will find only peer reviewed articles. But if you read it, effort is requested. For example: traditional cosmology says there is redshift ergo galaxies are moving away from earth (or from each other, if space is "curved"). Peer reviewed articles will show you: there are approximately 60 different ways to explain redshift.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
60 ways? I had heard of 4 ...

JH "in Sungenis books you will find only peer reviewed articles."

Not sure AM would recognise them as such.

IV
JH
Tons of evidence in Sungenis' Galileo was wrong, and on this website:

The Copernican Principle: Door Number One or Door Number Two?
February 27, 2017, by Rick DeLano
http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/copernican-principle-door-number-one-door-number-two/


AM
That ain’t evidence. It’s nonsense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
JH - Sungenis and DeLano are generally mostly good.

They miss the mootness of parallax in Geocentrism (which is one big asset with it) and they have objected to angelic movers, at least to discussing them in a scientific context.

If heavenly bodies are moved by angels, scientific contexts don't get more accurate by pretending they are moved by Newtonian vectors alone.

AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl sungenis got his doctorate via mail order.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
AM - that is first of all not relevant for his argument, and second, a perfectly licit procedure.

lundi 15 janvier 2018

Up Against Evangelical Hecklers


I don't have an extensive blocklist. Nancy Smith-Williams and Art Kester just made it to it.

They were demanding me alone to answer both of them at the same time, in real time. A bit like the disciples of Spurgeon tend to do when "Evangelising".

But up to when they started becoming tedious, they gave some interesting debate. Nine people are now (after c. 8 years on FB here this profile) on my blocklist, it is not extensive. Patricia A Lovric whose question started it is not on it.

Patricia A Lovric
13 Janvier, 14:47
Will a Christian who dies while committing a sin go to heaven?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
When someone becomes a new creature, he ceases to be a sinner.

If you die while making yourself a sinner again, by committing a mortal sin, you go to Hell. Requirements? Grave matter against the commandments, full consent, full knowledge of what you are doing.

Note, thinking that "suicide can't be a grave matter" is not lack of full knowledge you are committing suicide, if suicide is the sin you are committing.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Nope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, you seem to lack some catechetic knowledge.

Here:

EWTN : CATECHISM OF SAINT PIUS X
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM


Nancy Smith-Williams
I lack nothing. My knowledge comes from knowing Jesus and God's word. Your catechism is worthless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you consider one of the best catechisms as worthless, you don't know God's word.

Art Kester
Nancy Smith-Williams Awesome!! I love your posts

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl I know God’s word. What can we talk about ???!!

Nancy Smith-Williams
Art Kester...Thank you! Blessings.

Art Kester I want him to ask me something. I know the Bible

Art Kester
Hmmm...I’m sure I could guess your answer but is a Christian once saved always saved ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Art Kester this, which Nancy said nope to:

When someone becomes a new creature, he ceases to be a sinner.

If you die while making yourself a sinner again, by committing a mortal sin, you go to Hell. Requirements? Grave matter against the commandments, full consent, full knowledge of what you are doing.

Note, thinking that "suicide can't be a grave matter" is not lack of full knowledge you are committing suicide, if suicide is the sin you are committing.

If you want a question too, well, if God chastises here and now, and there is no Purgatory, when does God chastise someone who dies sinning (supposing he is not damned).

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl wow that’s a lot of bloviating! So was that a yes or a no to once saved always saved ??

[If he meant OSAS on individual level, I think I just did say no. Some do lose their salvation, but the Church does not.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Art Kester you seem to want easy answers and to avoid difficult questions.

Nancy Smith-Williams
As a Christian I am not a sinner in God's view.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nancy Smith-Williams If you are a living Christian you are not only not a sinner in God's view, but you are not a sinner. This is a condition which ceases if you commit a mortal sin.

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl what I want is clear concise answers. But apparently you can’t manage that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You apparently want concise answers on set questions and avoid other questions. I don't want to manage that.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Right...I am no longer a sinner but a saint.

Whenever I sin that doesn't change.

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl oooh there must be a list of mortal sins! Where is the list? I may want to laminate it and stick it on my fridge

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nancy Smith-Williams

".I am no longer a sinner but a saint."

If you have committed no mortal sin after a valid baptism or confession.

"Whenever I sin that doesn't change."

It does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Art Kester it is called the decalogue.

Art Kester
Nancy Smith-Williams Exactly....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I seem to be around two heretics playing at "we are the Church" and the "two or three witnesses" before denouncing sn to it.

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl dude you’re so lost but it’s ok I guess we will see each other in heaven and God may explain to you what He really cares about and that’s unconditional love not the Decalogue!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Salvation is un-pre-condistional, not un-subsequent-conditional.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Nothing changes. My relationship with God may lose some intimacy, but as His daughter, I know that when I confess to Him my failure, He teminds me lovingly about the fact that all my sins have been wiped away.

Nancy Smith-Williams
And He restores me immediately.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except when he doesn't.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Hans-Georg Lundahl...I am no heretic and you starting the animosity by making such a charge proves you are not on the side if right. You do not know what the Church is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do, I am a Catholic.

Nancy Smith-Williams
God always restores His children when they run to Him.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Are you born again?

Art Kester
Nancy Smith-Williams I love these ppl who admit their behavior wasn’t good enough to GET saved. But by some magic AFTER they are saved their behavior can be good enough to maintain salvation OR it could be bad enough to forfeit salvation! It it were all true God would have to be schizophrenic

(Hans-Georg Lundahl is ...
...answering two questions at once, second writting before posting first answer)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, when ... if it is really to Him they run.

Yes, I am born again by Baptism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Art Kester God is not schizophrenic you are simplistic.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Baptism saves no one. Try again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Baptism saves no one? Oh, John chapter 3.

Art Kester
Hans-Georg Lundahl Shocker!! Hey did Peter Really start the only legitimate church?!!

Nancy Smith-Williams
Try reading the whole NT.

John 3 makes no mention of baptism.

Try again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, Christ started it on Peter.

I'd like to know what Nancy misconstrues as against salvation by baptism.

John 3 mentions "born again by water and spirit", meaning baptism in water is what is meant.

Nancy Smith-Williams
Nope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, not my fault if Nancy can't read (unless it's medical journals)

You see,
before I blocked her, I saw her profile, she is a nurse or former nurse.

Did you think
I was only debating on this front? Check out Nancy's answer to OP question and what I wrote there:

Nancy Smith-Williams
Once you are adopted, the Father owns you. He's not going to give you up, but like the perfect Father He is, He will chastize you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
When if you are just dying?

In Purgatory?

Nancy Smith-Williams
No such thing as Purgatory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If there isn't, where is God spanking someone who needs spanking but not giving up when he dies?

Nancy Smith-Williams
God chastises His children in the here and now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In that case, what does he do when someone dies sinning and escapes chastisement in the "here and now", presuming that means this side of the grave?

Nancy Smith-Williams
God receives His own when they die. You cannot gain salvation by good behaviour and likewise you cannot lose salvation by bad behaviour.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You can gain Salvation by Christ's good behaviour, and also by your own in receving it. You can also make yourself again unworthy of it.

You just pretended when someone "saved" sins, God chastises him, so, when, if it is someone who dies sinning.

Perhaps
the notification from Nancy Smith-Williams was her a bit overdue answer on this one (while I had been dragging around the other one, see above), if so I missed it by blocking her.

Either way, there are guys, both Evangelical and Atheist who will use this two against one tactic on the internet, like they seem to enjoy doing it also orally.

jeudi 11 janvier 2018

For Torrey and Myself, Against Farnell (partly) and Fout and Olson


Norman Geisler Ministry Page
shared Defending Inerrancy's post. December 1, 2017

Defending Inerrancy
November 30, 2017
Do OT writers exaggerate and distort the truth? Some DTS PhD grads apparently say YES!

The Alarming Rise Of The Evangelical Hyperbolic Hermeneutic
F. David Farnell, PhD
http://defendinginerrancy.com/evangelical-hyperbolic-hermeneutic/


Hans-Georg Lundahl
answers much of the link

I Against Farnell's accusations against Romanism
"During their day, the prevailing interpretation ideology of Romanism was allegorical, or more importantly, non-literal interpretation that had held sway for 1500 years at least."

It was allegorical, it was NOT non-literal.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice literally means Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice. Which he did.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice allegorically means Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary - which He did.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice morally means we should trust in God even in extreme danger of life - which we should.

Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice anagogically means sth about the heavenly glory too, but I am not sure what. But what it anagogically means is true too.

If you didn't get it, I am saying this as a Romanist, as it is here called.

And introducing the allegorical method was done by Jesus Himself, since all over Moses and the Prophets His resurrection was foretold. You don't get the "all over" part, unless you accept the allegorical sense.

"but allowed the interpreter to find in the text any concept or idea desired by the interpreter, especially when the text in its literal sense presented something unacceptable to the interpreter’s mindset."

If he pretended so, he was lying, but I'd like a reference from his own writings this was his motive.

The literal sense can never be done away with. Not with Romanists, anyway.

"He believed that allegory or non-literal approach often contradicted the literal sense outright."

OK, Jesus carrying the Cross to Calvary contradicts Isaac carrying the firewood how?

II For Torrey
"One need only read R. A. Torrey’s The Fundamentals original work to see that they left a monumental testimony that “higher criticism,” today known as “historical criticism” and its bent toward dismissal of the historicity, supernatural of the OT and NT, as well as its, non-literal interpretation."

Grammatical literal sense of above sentence wanted.

"One need only read R. A. Torrey’s The Fundamentals original work to see that"

Clear.

"that they left a monumental testimony that"

Clear.

"that “higher criticism,” today known as “historical criticism”
subject
and its bent toward dismissal of the historicity, supernatural of the OT and NT,
subject
as well as its, non-literal interpretation."
also subject - where is the predicate???

By the way, Torrey in 1917 was a few years behind Popes Leo XIII and St Pius X, also condemning "higher criticism".

"especially since historical-criticism fought so strongly against an “infallible” or today’s term “inerrant” (without error) Bible."

Why did Protestants change the description of the Bible from "infallible" to "inerrant"?

Because Catholics make the distinction.

Each and every hagiographer as such was infallible and inerrant, by the grace and providence of God (God allowed Moses to well investigate with correct intuition about contradicting versions, if there were any or where to find the missing pieces, but God also allowed the Hebrew tradition up to him to involve no error gaining upper hand and no lacunae too important to sap it - that was providential).

But Catholic bishops, collectively, are infallible only.

If all Catholic bishops agreed on a wrong anno mundi for Christ's birth (say 5299 instead of 5199) on some occasion, but never formally expressed this as binding dogma (next Christmas reading again, correctly, He was born 5199 after Creation), this would prove them not inerrant - but their not making a doctrine of the spurious "AM 5299" would be the negative side of their collective infallibility.

III For Myself
"This means that we accept at face value the biblical record of the creation of the universe and man, the historic fall of Adam in Eden, the Noahic flood, the Tower of Babel, and all other events of biblical history, both natural and supernatural."

I do so also, at least insofar as there is one.

Tower of Babel, two things.

I
1) Would you at face value include it was a piece of architecture?
2) Would you at face value include it was vertically oblong?
3) Would you at face value include Nimrod (or whoever else the building master was, but tradition says Nimrod) having hopes to literally and not just visually "reach into heaven"?

In that case, you would need to either consider heaven as very close to the surface of earth (Rob Skiba is trying that) or Nimrod as very dumb (in and of itself no problem, not one of the giants of old found wisdom, Baruch ch. 3, forgot which verse).

Or would you agree one of the three things is not really part of the face value, at least if you face the text long enough?

In my view it is n#1.

On Cape Canaveral, a few times, towers have been raised of which not step one or two, but only step three reaches into Heaven. We call them rockets.

II
"[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. [2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it."

Would you at face value include lack of geographic spread? Or could "they" mean sth more restricted than "all men" and "earth" mean literally men spread out all over the earth?

"[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city."

Would you at face value include geographic spread to begin then, or only the disunity between the different lands to begin then?

I take the latter view.

For one thing because of the tradition Hebrews were spared the confusion of tongues, since not collaborating. That would need some geographic distance if Nimrod was a mighty hunter of men.

For another, because this leaves room for a continuity of habitations between pre- and post-Babel, but a cessation of the to and fro to Babel and back which I imagine was going on.

And these factors, I, lack of architectonic tower being acceptable, II presence of geographic spread being acceptable, but III (verse 1) presence of recorded writing in different tongues NOT being acceptable means I consider Göbekli Tepe a very good candidate.

I agree with Graham Hancock on that one, but not in general world view, of course. Nor, obviously, in his acceptance at face value of carbon dates.

2551 (five years after Peleg born in 2556 BC) to 2511 - that is the traditional forty years of Babel.

If 2551 BC looks like 9600 BC and 2511 BC like 8600 BC, one can calculate exactly what carbon 14 levels were at start and end of Babel event - and that carbon 14 production was 11 times faster than it is now since carbon 14 level has been stable for 2500 years (or even since some before that).

IV Against Fout and Olson
"2. The number of the Ephraimites in Judges 12. Judges 12:6 gives a number of slain at 42, 000 for mispronouncing “Shibboleth,” but that such a number “exceeds the census for that tribe in either Numbers 1:32 (40,500) or Numbers 26:35 (32,500)."

Time had elapsed since Numbers 1:32 and since Numbers 26:35.

Similarily there is slight population growth in totals for Israel:

Num. 1:45 at 603, 550 total
Numbers 26:51 at 601, 730
2 Kings 24:9 at 1.3 million
1 Paralipomenon 21:5 at 1.57 million

Now, some argue that:

“Like the censuses of the book of nUmbers, the totals are entirely too large.” (p. 379)

R e m i n d s me of those arguing population of Europe was very low in the Middle Ages or Antiquity.

A reason not to trust them, right?

A scholarship giving a bad result on the Bible can't be trusted to give good results elsewhere - I mean of course a particular school in scholarship on a particular type of issue, not scholarship as such in general.

"And he gave David the number of them, whom he had surveyed: and all the number of Israel was found to be eleven hundred thousand men that drew the sword: and of Juda four hundred and seventy thousand fighting men."

Here is Challoner's comment:

[5] "The number": The difference of the numbers here and 2 Kings 24. is to be accounted for, by supposing the greater number to be that which was really found, and the lesser to be that which Joab gave in.

He was one of these pesky Romanists with their - our - pesky "non-literal" interpretation ...

"Next, based on an examination of (1) a brief review of the history of interpretation of these numbers that asserts a rejection of these numbers as true but rather allegorized them [with the exception of the Reformers who took them literally—PLEASE NOTE: [notice they were grammatico-historical advocates of literal interpretation] (pp. 379-81);"

Numbers are not allegorised to avoid believing literal numbers!

We believe the Apostles literally caught 153 fish, but we also allegorise it as the 153 Hail Marys in a complete Rosary.

"current archaeological and demographics discoveries that suggest at no time did the land contain such a large population as seen in Numbers 1; 26"

Well, seems like either archaeology or demographics is done with some bad methodology - not just for that particular error detected by the Bible!

Thank God for warning us about other inaccuracies the false methods can risk landing us with!

"Skeletal and tooth wear data from ancient times indicate an average lifespan of around forty years old, not over 900 years as in Genesis 5, or even the almost 200 years of the later patriarchs."

1) I'd say this poses the question whether these are accurate measures.

I don't believe in average lifespans of around forty, except insofar as high child mortalities bias it down.

Includes Patriarchs as well as Middle Ages which is getting undeserved bad press for "low average life spans".

Kings and Knights were dying around 55, and this is due to a wearing and tearing lifestyle, like if bodybuilders go on that way past thirty.

People with calmer lives lived longer.

2) As lifespans were decreasing, one consequence could be skeleta and teeth wearing out quicker. This means a "40" for modern times could correspond to a "400" for pre- and early post-Flood times.

3) The line from Noah to Abraham could have had exceptionally long lifespans (not what I think, but possible).

4) If Upper Palaeolithic is all between Flood and Babel AND Babel is "Year of the World about 1800, and Year before Christ 2204." as per Vulgate rather than LXX chronology (Ussher), and Flood "Year of the World 1656, Year before Christ 2348." then Babel / Göbeki Tepe was 144 after Flood, and then those dying in Upper Palaeolithic were all dying premature deaths.

"Kings and Knights were dying around 55, and this is due to a wearing and tearing lifestyle, like if bodybuilders go on that way past thirty," I just said.

Based on my calculations, not from archaeology, but from narrative history as accessed via wikipedians and in the lineages from St Louis IX.

"Plus, a chronology based on these lifespans is biblically inconsistent and contradicts the archaeology of the Intermediate Bronze and Middle Bronze ages."

Solved by a lower carbon 14 level in the Bronze Ages. Abraham (LXX, not Ussher) born 2015 BC (a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo, the Catholic Church said at midnight Mass less than a month ago).

Abraham c. 80 in Genesis 14 - > 1935 BC.

Genesis 14 involves either Chalcolithic or Neolithic of Engeddi (thank you Osborne).

I go for Chalcolithic, considering its Neolithic was rather around Babel, a few centuries before Abraham.

Chalcolithic of Engaddi perhaps sth like dated 3300 BC.

3300 BC (carbon)
1935 BC (for real)
1365

So 1365 extra years -> 84.779 percent modern carbon ....

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

... at Genesis 14. In the atmosphere. Well, quite a lot more than in the time of GT/Babel:

9600 BC (carbon)
2551 BC (for real)
7049 extra years

8600 BC (carbon
2511 BC (for real)
6089 extra years

Going from 7049 to 6089 extra years in forty years means going from (same carbon 14 dating calculator) 42.626 to 47.875 pmc.

In 40 years you get 99.517 percent of original content if no new carbon is added.

This means:

0.99517 * 42.626 pmc = 42.42 pmc should be left is nothing was added.

But with a normal production during 40 years, you get: 1 (present level!) - 0.99517 = 0.00483 Or, 0.483 pmc added to the 42.42 = 42.903 pmc.

Instead of 42.903 pmc at the end of Babel we have 47.875 pmc.

47.875 - 42.42 = 5.455 pmc carbon production in 40 years. 5.455 / 0.483 = 11.294 (rounding off). That is how much faster carbon 14 was forming during Babel than now. If I have identified it right (see above).

"But these lifespans are outside the known extent of human longevity and seem to add a mythical or legendary quality to the narratives."

Olson's methodology is at fault in discounting the mythical and legendary qualities in narratives as non-factual.

Again, a method which is wrong about the Bible is not right about other things.

I believe Beowulf killed off two humanoid creatures (Grendel and his mother) and one dragon / reptiloid creature (hesitating between Pterodactyl and Dimetrodon) "with wings" (Dimetrodon sail could be taken by far off observers as folded wings).

I also believe Odin arrived at Uppsala and either pretended to be a god or was very badly misunderstood, presumablyt also by his heirs the Ynglings.

Hope you have no problem with this?

"He notes that “written records of how people interpreted the lifespans in Genesis do not appear until after ca. 300 BC” so one cannot be certain as to how the ancients interpreted lifespan due to the “time gap.” "

Reason why I for my part prefer to trust Beowulf and Ynglingasaga despite time gap of over 1000 years between Odin and Snorre, shorter but probably still there between Beowulf and his English poet.

Or Iliad and Odyssey (except for theology, which Homer as well as immediate observers were mistaken on).

As said, a method which shows itself wrong about the Bible is not right about other things.


Cited Bible verses from either DRBO or Haydock comment, 1859 edition.

mardi 2 janvier 2018

En suédois on dirait "justa clubben" (exception grosso modo Emmanuelle Chenu qui était vraiment juste)


Sur FB:
Wanted Community Paris

Hans-Georg Lundahl
29 décembre 2017, 15:56
Perdu :

Perdu ou volé? Vais-je le retrouver?

Dans la laverie à Créteil, ce matin, j'avais le sachet en étoffe de jean : je l'ai rattaché avec deux noeuds là où il était normalement attaché sur le trench-coat que je venais de laver.

Donc, il devait normalement être attaché là ... à travers le café dont le cafetier chinois m'a refusé de rester pour un café allongé sous prétexte de mon bagage. À travers le métro - à moins que je l'ai perdu à l'entrée par la porte. Métro 8 à République, métro 11 à rue des Vertus / Arts et métiers. Je suis allé à un bar, pour un café et aller aux toilettes, à la bibliothèque que j'ai découvert n'ouvrait qu'à 13 h., ensuite au parc, ensuite j'ai quitté le parc pour aller faire des courses au grand monoprix, ensuite à l'Armée du Salut / ESI St Martin, là où j'ai mon courrier. Pas de lettre de la famille. Pris un café en bas.

Je me suis assis dehors à la marche de Comédie truc ou machin (20-40 m de l'ESI), et je décide d'aller autre part.

Ensuite, je découvre que le sachet manque. Je retourne à la dame au courrier, non. En bas, non, pas non plus. Monoprix, je demande un gardien, non. Le bar, non. Le parc, deux des personnes que j'avais vues avant, non, pas là non plus. L'avais-je perdu quelque part en dehors la bibliothèque? Non, et pouisque c'est déjà 12:40, je reste.

Ce qui reste maintenant, c'est:

Comédie truc ou machin (Comédie française il me semble, quoique ça paraît optimiste), métro Arts et métiers, 11 à République, 8 à Créteil ... le métro là-bas aussi, ensuite le bar avec le cafetier chinois, ensuite traverser la rue pour regarder enfin si je l'ai perdu après l'avoir mal attaché dans la laverie elle-même.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St Jean l'Apôtre
27.XII.2017

De mon blog:

New blog on the kid : Perdu ou volé? Vais-je le retrouver?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/12/perdu-ou-vole-vais-je-le-retrouver.html


Stalh Sn
Je vois je vois.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Le sachet, déjà?

Emmanuelle Chenu
What do you mean by "sachet en étoffe de jeans" ?

Mymy Abd
oui

Juícy Chris
c'est le père fouras ou quoi 😂

Maud Brou
Je n’ai mais alors rien capté!!!

Aurelia DesMarty Humbert
[gif d'Emmanuel Macron en train de dire "je n'ai pas compris cette phrase"]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je suis venu ici, parce que telle amie m'a dit que vous pourriez aider à retrouver le sachet.

Peut-être qu'elle a mal compris le but de ce groupe, peut-être j'ai trouvé un homologue de celui que je cherchais?

Comédie de St Martin était encore fermé, le sachet en étoffe de jean n'était pas là ...

Emmanuelle Chenu
Sorry but people don't understand what "le sachet en étoffe de jean" is. Can you be more specific please ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je le ferais en bas.

Epo Elysium Nutshell
[gif avec "mais oui, c'est clair"]

Nolwenn Briand
[émotica de rigolade]

Epo Elysium Nutshell
Non mais c'est wtf cette publi

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Quelqu'un qui aurait trouvé l'objet entretemps?

Emmanuelle Chenu
I think that many of us here fail to picture what you mean exactly by "le sachet".

A sachet is something very small in french as le sachet de thé (tea bag).

Can you describe the object you lost please ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je connais le mot sachet de thé, mais un sachet c'est simplement moins grand qu'un sac, linguistiquement.

Je n'ai pas vraiment réfléchi à comment nommer l'objet que j'ai fabriqué.

Poche détachable va aussi.

Nolwenn Briand
Ils l'ont déposé a la poste ce matin, sur le comptoir, il arrivera demain, en voiture 16, sauf si le serveur est veuf.

Pierre de Crécy
Ca dépends, après 27 heures du matin, c'est plus le même créneau de livraison :/

Nolwenn Briand
Absolument surtout quand le chauffage tombe en panne, il a tendance a remonter par la glissière !

Isabelle DeCha
Kamoulox

Noura Noura
J ai rien compris. ...

Steven Debordeaux
J’ai rien compris

Aurelia DesMarty Humbert
[un gif sans texte]

La mer noire.

Emmanuelle Chenu
Are you looking for a bag ? A wallet ? Your translation of "le sachet" seems to be wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Poche détachable, donc.

À SNCF [RATP, j'étais fatigué] j'ai donné "saccoche".

De toute manière, j'ai décrit son composition physique:

"en étoffe de jean"

Et son fonctionnement normale:

"je l'ai rattaché avec deux noeuds là où il était normalement attaché sur le trench-coat que je venais de laver."

La poche intérieure du trench coat me perdait trop souvent mon passeport et mes autres trucs (cartes de bibliothèques etc) quand je mettait le trench coat comme cape (avec des cordes ajoutés), donc j'ai fait une "poche détachable" en étoffe d'un jean que je refaisais en shorts.

Elle était suffisamment large pour un petit livre de poche.

Elle avait deux cordes attaches, une à la longueur en haut pour le rattacher au trench coat, une autre pour porter un bouton qui fermait "le dessus" de la poche.

Y a-t-il des détails qui sont encore pas trop clairs?

[Je crois que "corde" était juste!]

Magali Marquant
St Jean l'apôtre ?? Mais c'est Dieu qui vous envoit ?? Un message subliminal ?? Un sachet ?? Un sachet de coke ?? :p ;-)

Greg, Nadia, Stephane, Tahar encore un coup des illuminatis pour le réveillon ça hein !! :p ;-)

Nadia Saleh
Magali Marquant A « perdu » il m’avait déjà perdu!!!! [émotica, pas juste de rire]

Greg Hoffman
Mais sérieux il est fou celui la [émoticon de rire]

Au moins il fait rire je suis plié depuis 1h déjà j'en peux plus [émotica de rire]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ma signature comporte trois parties.

Première partie, le nom avec les prénoms avant.

"Hans-Georg Lundahl"

Deuxième partie, le lieux.

"Bibl. Audoux" = Bibliothèque Marguerite Audoux.

Troisième partie, la date, deux lignes:

"St Jean l'Apôtre / 27.XII.2017"

Je vous cite le martyrologe pour 27.XII:
27 Decembris Sexto Kalendas Januarii. Luna ... xxviij. A

*Apud Ephesum natalis sancti Joannis, Apostoli et Evangelistae, qui, post Evangelii scriptionem, post exsilii relegationem et Apocalypsim divinam, usque ad Trajani Principis tempora perseverans, totius Asiae fundavit rexitque Ecclesias, ac tandem, confectus senio, sexagesimo octavo post passionem Domini anno mortuus est, et juxta eamdem urbem sepultus.*

Constantinopoli sanctorum Confessorum Theodori et Theophanis fratrum, qui, a pueritia in Palaestinensi sancti Sabbae monasterio nutriti, cum postea pro sanctarum Imaginum cultu adversus Leonem Armenum strenue decertarent, ejus jussu verberibus affecti sunt et exsilio relegati. Sed, eodem Leone mortuo, rursus Theophilo Imperatori, qui eadem impietate detinebatur, constanter resistentes, verberibus iterum caesi et in exsilium pulsi sunt, ubi Theodorus in carcere exspiravit. Theophanes vero, pace demum Ecclesiae reddita, factus est Nicaenae civitatis Episcopus, et confessionis gloria praeclarus quievit in Domino.

Alexandriae sancti Maximi Episcopi, qui satis clarus et insignis titulo confessionis effectus est. Constantinopoli sanctae Nicaretes Virginis, quae, sub Arcadio Imperatore, claruit sanctitate.

Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.

Donc,
un 27 Décembre c'est un jour de St Jean l'Apôtre.

Je ne me prends pas pour mon saint patron, mais j'observe son jour!

"Un sachet de coke ??"

Je ne sais pas si ce serait à votre goût, ce ne l'est pas pour le mien.

Passeport, cartes de bibliothèques etc.

Un petit "évangile de St Jean" (malheureusement traduction protestante).

Une domiciliation à ESI St Martin.

Une carte de photocopies qui marche sur une des bibliothèques, la BU de Nanterre-Paris X. 330 copies restants dessus.

Fleur van den Baviere
[gif "what are you talking about"]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bienvenue à regarder un peu plus haut.

[J'avais ajouté l'explication en haut après de voir ce gif]

Fatou Bathily
[gif d'une femme ou fille qui roule les yeux en désapprobration]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bienvenue à regarder un peu plus haut.

Emmanuelle Chenu
Tu as donc perdu une pochette en jean suffisamment grande pour y mettre un livre et attachée par deux ficelles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Je ne dirais pas ficelles, je dirais cordes - ficelle c'est assez petit à mon avis ... bon, 5 mm ou un peu moins d'épaisseur, elle était double en haut. Cousue à la "pochette" si vous préférez.

[surfatigué, je ne suis pas sûr de la limite entre corde et ficelle en français, et je me dis après que j'avais peut-être tort - mais pas selon "Diamètre de corde : 2,3 mm"]

Emmanuelle Chenu
Bonne chance pour la retrouver. Retourne aux endroits où tu n'as pas vérifié.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Si vous avez lu la publication, il y a très peu de tels endroits. Même possibles. Entre République et Arts et Métiers, j'ai utilisé des différents côtés de la rue, c'est tout.

Je n'ai donc pas regardé devant l'Église de l'Ordre de Malte.

Maud Brou
Bonjour,
Si vous pouviez encore expliquer ce que vous recherchez de façon très terre à terre, ce serait gentil de votre part...

J’ai relu le post initial et je pensais arriver à déchiffrer, mais hélas, trou noir absolu 😳

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Imaginez une enveloppe ou une blague de tabac. Mais en étoffe de jeans. Taille : suffisemment pour un livre de poche, et encore un peu.

Le "dessus" ou "couvercle" qui se plie sur le devant a un trou de bouton. Dessous j'ai passé en double une corde ou ficelle (quelle que soit la bonne désignation pour un truc de 4-5 mm d'épaisseur, ce n'est pas une ficelle fine fine de toute manière) sur l'oeuil de laquelle j'ai cousu un ... bouton.

À la limite entre "dos" ou "derrière" et "dessus", j'ai cousu au milieu et aux deux coins encore une double ficelle qui dépassait avec un peu largeur, question de l'attacher aux doubles ficelles dans le trench coat. Encore une double ficelle y est aussi attaché, "en triangle", noeud en haut, qui permet de la rattacher alternativement à la ceinture.

Marlon Nguyen-Trong
J'ai encore moins compris ce post que mon cours de Droit International Privé, c'est fort.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Regardez les clarifications, s v p, ou donnez les phrases peu clairs.

Paulette Hilton
Pas tt lu. C est tt à fait indigeste à lire.

Pierre de Crécy
Comme ça vous êtes deux :p

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paulette Hilton, je me trouve dans une situation précaire encore précarisée et vous trouvez à dire que c'est indigeste comme j'exprime ça?

N'avez pas trouvé l'objet qq part proche de la Mairie du III, Place de la République, ou Bibliothèque Marguérite Audoux?

Si vous l'aviez, ce serait un réponse plus sympa, et nettement!

Paulette Hilton
Je suis pas de Paris et au final, j'ai mm pas compris ce que vous avez perdu.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[lien ici-même, ceci est une mise à jour]

Ah, pas de Paris? Une curieuse?

Ça marche aussi. Dans le lien il y a les clarifications déjà faites.

Eug JM
[émoticon de yeux en deux lignes raides et de bouche d'une ligne raide]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fatigué aussi. Prends encore une heure ou deux de sommeil, ou peut-être un café.

Vous savez quelqu'un m'avait présenté ce groupe comme une possibilité de retrouver un objet trouvé en faisant appel à davantage d'yeux.

Je commence à me poser la question, si la suggestion était une blague - et si l'objet aurait été volé (au moins momentanément) dans le but de m'exposer à cette blague ...

Si vous trouvez mon style littéraire "indigeste" allez sur twitter, ici j'ai posé une question à propos un peu d'objets de valeurs qui m'appartiennent, et on me harcèle à propos mon style littéraire parce qu'on a eu des profs dont les modèles sont très récents et probablement de la poésie très courte.

Yetta Jerry
Apparement cette personne aurait perdue une pochette en jean assez grande pour contenir un livre dans cette dite pochette il y a des papiers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
correct!

S. K. [anonymisé]
J'ai balancé la pochette à la poubelle après avoir pris la drogue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
et donné à la police, j'espère?

d'ailleurs, je ne l'avais pas mis dedans moi-même, ça devrait être planté après, dans ce cas

Les documents seraient donc déjà enlevés, avant que vous le faites, mais ma couture vous a tellement déplu que vous l'avez jetée dans la poubelle?

lundi 1 janvier 2018

Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley


With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, there is an authority greater than any church or pope. It is by that authority that I am able to say what I say.

Jesus Christ was around Augustus Caesar's time, which is also when Julius was a centurion. Apart from those worldly men I know nobody else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I would like to hear your explanation of God being a spirit but not "unphysical".

This is going where spirits can interact with the physical world but the physical world cannot interact with spirits? What do you believe causes that and which law of nature or law of God is that following?

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Luke 2:1 KJV

The only empire at the time was the Roman Empire. He was emperor at the time of Jesus Christ's birth according to Luke and Simeon (Luke 2:25).

"But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar." Acts 25:21 KJV

"And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' band." Acts 27:1 KJV

Okay, Julius was not in the time of Jesus Christ like I thought, he was after. But Augustus Caesar was emperor at Jesus's birth and resurrection, all the way to Paul's time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"there is an authority greater than any church or pope. It is by that authority that I am able to say what I say."

OK, it is by that authority the Church is able to say what it says, and it is by the Church we access that authority as to our souls.

God is a spirit, but since 2000 years ALSO a human soul and a human body.

So, you still have a gap between I C. AD and, perhaps Reformation - that is about 14 centuries?

"But Augustus Caesar was emperor at Jesus's birth and resurrection, all the way to Paul's time."

Tiberius was Caesar in the time of Christ's Resurrection, and Nero got Peter and Paul martyred in 64 AD.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl,
"'But Augustus Caesar was emperor at Jesus's birth and resurrection, all the way to Paul's time.'

Tiberius was Caesar in the time of Christ's Resurrection, and Nero got Peter and Paul martyred in 64 AD."


Not according to scriptures, in Acts it says Paul wanted to have a hearing by Augustus Caesar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You refer to Acts 25:21.

Here is Haydock on it:

"Ver. 21. Augustus Nero, who was then the Roman emperor."

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id140.html

Note, the verse does nowhere say "Caesar Augustus" or even "Augustus Caesar", but it uses "Augustus" and "Caesar" as synonyms. Nero is not the same person as Caesar Augustus in "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled." (Luke 2:1).

So, your being led by the spirit in reading Bible, the results make me wonder "which spirit".

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, "Caesar" was the first emperor's first name? The Bible never went by last names. It was always a name with a title or title and a name. Only time they mention a family is when they say a "house": House of David.

Do not forget, the New Testament may have been written in Greek but it was written by Jewish Apostles or of them. Even Apostle Paul claimed he was a Jew by heritage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl,
"So, your being led by the spirit in reading Bible, the results make me wonder 'which spirit'."

Careful, you know blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. The way the Pharisees blasphemed the Spirit was by saying Jesus Christ had an "evil spirit". Don't make the same mistake.

Timothy Bradek
"As it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that (L)ove Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1Cor.2)."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ivan Shiek, I was wondering whether your bad history and bad exegesis was among the things you got from whatever or whoever is your spirit.

Timothy Bradek, fair enough for the grace content of the Faith, but not fair enough for the fact that those who have the Faith are an outwardly visible group at each moment between Pentecost and the Second Coming (and the ten days before Pentecost as well).

// "Caesar" was the first emperor's first name? //

Caesar was the L A S T name of Julius Caesar (the one in Asterix), the S E C O N D L A S T name of "Caesar Augustus" after his adoption by former (Gaius Julius Caesar adopted Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, whom the Senate gave the title "Augustus").

// The Bible never went by last names. //

Except when dealing with Romans. Pilate is also a last name.

// It was always a name with a title or title and a name. //

Augustus was a title. Caesar was a name becoming a title.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl,

I have no degree in any subject, I am not ordained by any man, I have no power of politics, and I am not of noble birth.

"Just look at yourselves, brothers — look at those whom God has called! Not many of you are wise by the world’s standards, not many wield power or boast noble birth. But God chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise; God chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the strong;" 1 Corinthians 1:26-27

Hans-Georg Lundahl,
You will know them by their fruit. If the fruit of my spirit bares bad fruit, then I am of the Evil One. But have I been trying to lead you away from God, or closer to Him? No, I have been trying to open your eyes to the truth, not for my benefit or pleasure, but for yours. So that you may claim God in Heaven as your true Father with a sincere heart. And call no man on earth as your "father".

Timothy Bradek
Hans-Georg Lundahl Fair enough for the grace content? This is not re: grace, but the difference between the "natural man" and being born from above, or the spiritual man, who .. is born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jesus Christ says that a man must be born again to see or enter the Kingdom of God (see Jn.3:5-7).

[A diagram I may have misinterpreted : in this life we may still be swinging between old and new man, of which the former necessarily sins - though not in every act - and the latter is not in and of itself sinning]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Timothy Bradek, you know [referring to diagram], for one thing "cannot sin" is not a state on earth, but in purgatory and heaven, and "can ONLY sin" (not cannot avoid sin, but cannot make acts other than sins) is a state also not on earth but in hell.

For another, supposing I am not born again, and therefore cannot (on your view) even see the Kingdom of Heaven even on Earth, you would presumably be born again and be able to tell me where it was in Vth and VIIth C.

Btw, what Christ told Nicodemus was he had to get baptised to get to Heaven, not that he had to become only mystically part of the elect in order to see where Heaven's ambassadors on Earth were.

Ivan Shiek "Not many of you are wise by the world’s standards, not many wield power or boast noble birth."

Not many of you = > still some.

So, you can't tell me who in Vth or VIIth C. was the Church, maybe one of those in your Church who does have some secular knowledge of history can tell you.

I mean, by now you have had time to ask.

Ivan Shiek "But have I been trying to lead you away from God, or closer to Him?"

Away from His Church and therefore, even if you don't get it, in reality away from Him.

Timothy Bradek
What in Tar-Nation are you babbling about, and what is that hellinski stuff. Here's what God says about your sin: "Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: and come short of the glory of God (Rom.3&5)." Even King David, under inspiration cries out, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me (Ps.51:5)."

Ivan Shiek
Timothy Bradek, I have been contending the faith with Hans-Georg Lundahl for days, he is too stubborn and set in the way he was taught. The only way for him to see the truth is for him to be born again and seek God's Kingdom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Timothy Bradek All have sinned is NOT equal to "all have done nothing excet sin" as you would have it to.

Ivan Shiek, I am born again by baptism.

The stubborness is on your side, you are SO demanding on everyone accepting what you know of history of 1517 - 21, but when it comes to Vth and VIIth Centuries (look them up on wiki!) you don't need to know anything, since "not many among you are learned".

No, it is n ot for the faith you have contended, whether you know it or not, but for a parody of it, as proven by Matthew 28.

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, God bless you and may He correct us both to His truth, amen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thank you for a good debate.

mercredi 27 décembre 2017

Continuing with Ivan Shiek


With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy) · With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church · Continuing with Ivan Shiek · Ending with Ivan Shiek and Timothy Bradley

To clarify : this continues subthread II on previous, not subthread III.

Ivan Shiek
Here is another passage that speaks of worshipping God and how we must worship Him. I believe it throws out the "God in the church" theory.

“Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you people say that the place where one has to worship is in Yerushalayim.” Yeshua (Jesus) said, “Lady, believe me, the time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Yerushalayim. You people don’t know what you are worshipping; we worship what we do know, because salvation comes from the Jews (Jesus is born a Jew and brings salvation to all that worship God). But the time is coming — indeed, it’s here now — when the true worshippers will worship the Father spiritually and truly, for these are the kind of people the Father wants worshipping him. God is spirit; and worshippers must worship him spiritually and truly.”
John 4:20-24

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, it is speaking of the time when the Church was becoming Catholic (over the whole earth) and it is saying the Jewish continuity (up to Christ) trumps the Samarian discontinuity.

I know.

Timothy Bradek
Ivan, I'm sorry but Fb doesn't include my comment w/ your latest reply, so I'm unable to recall from memory what exactly I said. Anyway my friend, Merry Christ.. mas to you and yours and a thank you to my Saviour who died for our sins.. and made me complete in Him and He in me, and we are in the Father in Heaven. Rejoice, again I say rejoice in Christ Jesus, Amen? Amen.. glory to God!!!

Ivan Shiek
Hans-Georg Lundahl, you are so off base. If it was speaking about Catholics, why do they still worship in buildings? If you understand what Christ said in that verse you wouldn't think of Catholics.

Christ broke all the old ways of worship. We no longer worship God in buildings but in spirit and truth.

The Jewish worship is no more and the Catholic's worship is no more. God is not physical, He is spiritual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If it was speaking about Catholics, why do they still worship in buildings?"

Building-S.

In Jewish worship, there was exactly ONE building they could worship in. Key difference.

If you insist one must worship God outdoors, well, I see that as a retake of Mount Gadarim.

As to God being spiritual : since 2000 years and some more, this no longer implies "not physical".

Ivan Shiek
Arguing with someone who does not have the Spirit and it's gift of discernment of scripture, is foolish.

When does spirit not mean spirit?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, here is some homework for you.

By who's authority am I able to say that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Messiah, and the Holy Spirit is in me?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"When does spirit not mean spirit?"

I don't know where you spent grammar school, but I don't recommend the place.

I never said God being spirit doesn't mean God being spirit. I did and do say that since 2000 years God being spirit does not mean God is unphysical.

"By who's authority am I able to say that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Messiah, and the Holy Spirit is in me?"

I don't know that you have that authority, but if you do, you are heading for the Catholic Church, sooner or later. And if you stay out of the Church, you have no authority to say the Holy Spirit is in you.

B u t, whether you can or can't say the Holy Spirit is in you, you should be able to point to someone else the Holy Spirit is in - including was in when they were alive and stays in their soul, which is with Christ. At least probable candidates.

You are still behind when it comes to those from Vth C. By the way, St Winifrede is from VIIth C.:

Creation vs Evolution : Living Stones
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/12/living-stones.html