mercredi 14 juin 2017

Emmerde sur FB - ou sur l'ordi

Les notifications inaccessibles:

J'ai eu le temps de faire l'image, et les notifications, c'est encore comme ça! 24 notifications, mais inaccessibles./HGL

Assumptions involved in Carbon dating

Bill Ludlow

See that "National Center for Science Education" thing?

Status in group
I'm seeing a pattern in this group with the use of the word "assumptions." Whenever a creationist here can't explain something in accordance with their worldview they toss out that word as a kind of safety net or end all comment.

Radiometric dating? "Assumptions"

Sedimentary layers form in different environments? "Assumptions"

Millions of years? "Assumptions"

Transitional species? "Assumptions"

If you expect to be taken seriously by anyone with a scientific background you had better be prepared to list those assumptions and answer why the assumptions are invalid, otherwise you will be seen as someone who just brushes off solid evidence by repeating a catch phrase and hand waving. Sometimes what people call "assumptions" are actually inferences based on logical deductions. An assumption is an implicit or unstated premise. Assumptions don't stand on their own. When combined with facts, valid assumptions lead to valid inferences.

[Skipping image, for now.]

some, down to my answer:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Radiometric dating? "Assumptions"
With C14, once you date anything to 40 000 BP, you cannot calibrate that against historical texts dated historically to 40 000 year ago, you need to assume that the carbon 14 level throughout atmosphere and living things was much the same as it is today.

If it was in fact more like 1.5 percent of what it is today, you get instead ... that it took less than 5730 years to get from 1.5 percent to the 0.792 percent modern carbon we date as 40 000 BP.

The point is : some evolutionists think this is not an assumption at all, but a basical natural fact, that other evening i was hearing some guy call the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere and in still living things "a constant" which it is not.

NEXT question is which assumption is best warranted : a) constancy of carbon 14 level in atmosphere? or : b) reliability of the biblical chronology?

The first of these has as a consequence unreliability of biblical chronology and therefore of Bible as history.

The second of these has a consequence that carbon 14 level has risen (and that drastically, by faster additions than the ones we see now, since we are already in an equilibrial state in atmosphere).

So, to a normal, unbiassed philosopher, the discussion goes : which consequence is most unacceptable? or : which assumption is best warranted?

To one such who is agnostic, there is a really good test : first ears of cultivated wheat found 19 000 BP, first systematic trace of what about 10 000 BP. Right, man cultivated some ears of wheat for fun, didn't find it tasty, went back to hunting and gathering, and ten thousand years later only started going farmer?

Or the carbon chronology is messed up due to rising carbon levels? In that case there may have been a few generations or a century or two between oldest ancient wheat and second oldest wheat we have today. This sounds reasonable.

"Un administrateur
a désactivé les commentaires pour cette publication."

[No more comments possible on this status! It was an admin who did it.]

BUT before this happened, Bill Ludlow had given some answers, and so has Ken Hansen, which I will need to adress on blog:

Bill Ludlow
Scientific Laws backed by mathematical calculations are not assumptions, sorry.

Radioactive decay and exponential laws
By Ian Garbett

Answered here
There is no scientific law which states that the carbon 14 level in atmosphere needs to remain all eternity around 100 percent modern carbon [or pmc for short].

That is the ONE divergence between me and conventional carbon dating, and it involves NO divergence about what radioactive decay nor of what exponential laws of mathematics are.

In fact, it very totally builds on them.

You see, suppose the level were rising from 90 pmc to 100 pmc. The beginning of the period of rise would have only* 870 extra years, the end of it none. So, the period is only lengthened by 870 years.

Suppose instead we were looking at the rise from 20 to 30 pmc.

Beginning the period we get the extra years* at 13 300 and ending it we get 9950


The period is now lengthened by 3350 years. More than half of a halflife, not just 870 years.

If instead we were looking at the change from 10 to 20 pmc, we get a doubling. Can you guess what the period will be lengthened by?

I would say a halflife.

Shall we test?

Beginning the period, we have* 19050 extra years and ending it we have 13300 of them.


5750 is not far from the expected 5730. So the period is lengthened by a halflife. So is the period going from 5 to 10 or from 2.5 to 5 pmc : 24750 to 19050 gets a 5700 years lengthening, 30500 to 24750 is lengthened by 5750.



Due to the exponential laws precisely, at the beginning of a rise of carbon 14 levels - and no natural law cited as such precludes this - the small changes (compared to at present) of carbon 14 levels will give big lengthenings of time scales.

Also, due to exponentiality working same fashion of decay at same times whatever value one starts with, the extra years at the beginning - what would be detected as the age by scientists getting back in a time machine and dating recently felled trees or recently fallen twigs - remains an extra to whatever age supervenes in real years with lower carbon levels in object due to decay rather than due to timing in a theoretically possible carbon 14 rise.

* In all examples I am using the same "carbon 14 dating calculator" which I have used so often before and which is put online by evolutionists :

Your turn now : you test for the rise from 1.25 to 2.5 pmc. Try to guess how much the period will be lengthened? You have fewer extra years at the end and you subtract these from the more extra years at the beginning.

Ken Hansen
The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide molecules is about 1.3×10-12, and this value is ASSUMED constant for the main part of archaeological history since the formation of the earth's atmosphere.

Bill Ludlow
"since the formation of the earth's atmosphere."

Nope, only for about the last 55,000 years since that is all the method is good for using standard counting techniques, and there are known fluctuations figured in. How far off would the assumptions have to be to make something that dates to 50,000 years fit into the YEC timeline?

Answered here
I have been working on that exact question for more than a year, since 2015 in october/november.

I have placed now the year of the Flood (2957 BC according to St Jerome and 3358 BC according to Syncellus) at carbon dated 40 000 BC. This means that sth dating 40 000 BP has 35026 extra years according to St Jerome.



35026 extra years means the carbon level was at 1.445 pmc. Which is about 69 times lower than the assumed c. 100 pmc.

Let's suppose the level was rising in the years between Creation and Flood too, this means the limit is this thing being dated to 5199 BC, but that is very unrealistic, we will still deal with it as a limit here:


42784 extra years

42784 extra years = a carbon level of 0.565 pmc, or c. 177 times lower carbon 14 level in atmosphere than expected by evolutionist assumptions.

Ken Hansen
That is an excerpt from the article you linked

Bill Ludlow
Okay, well "archaeological history" only goes back 2.5 million years with the discovery of the first tools, but we still are only talking about the atmospheric conditions within the last 55,000 years.

Answered here
Actually, the 2.5 million years are by a totally different dating method, namely mainly by K-Ar (potassium 40 to argon 40, reliability depends on there being no excess argon, which apparently sometimes there is, as said by evolutionists themselves about K-Ar datings of Mount St Helens)

We cannot say as per datings whether a K-Ar dated object from "2.5 million years ago" is less or more recent than a carbon dated one from "50 000 BP"

Ken Hansen
If C14 started being produced 6000 years ago, it would make a huge difference in the age calculations. From what I've read, the rate of decay and the rate of production of C14 is still out of equilibrium. This fits in with 6000 years but not 55000.

Bill Ludlow

How could we possibly date something at 40,000 years if the rate of decay only fits a 6,000 year old earth?

Answered here
Ken, you are wrong, if the equilibrium were not already reached, we could not get a consistent half life for otherwise very well attested and very consistent last 2500 years.

Bill, you are wrong because you think we are talkuing about a different rate of decay, we are talking about a different level of initial C14.

Neither of you could probably have guessed that the buildup in order to fit an equilibrium reached 2500 years ago needs to involve an initially way faster production of C14 than now. One of my tables gave 20 times as fast as now, this means that the cosmic radiation would have been 20 times as great (supposing proportionality is direct and a "linear graph" between levels of the two).

A cosmic radiation 20 times higher in the year of the Flood as to now sounds much, but it is still not very much higher than the present total background radiation at Princeton. It's like going from 6 to 8 milliSieverts per year or less.

Ken Hansen
Because the rates should equalize within 30000 years

If there was little or no C14 6000 years ago, it would look pretty old if equilibrium is assumed.

Bill Ludlow
What evidence do you have there was no C 14 6000 years ago?

More assumptions?

Ken Hansen
Yep. You have yours, I have mine.

Answered here
Here I must agree with Ken : we are differing from Bill on what assumptions are MOST reasonable and what consequences of an assumption are LEAST acceptable.

The problem is, Bill and his fellows have been taught as if their case did not even need untested and untestable assumptions. It does.

Other problem, there seems to be some recent conspiracy around to "read" or "understand" creationists arguing about this, as if they were arguing about the rate of radioactive decay. Some few are, most of us are arguing about some kind of buildup of carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere. And this is being constantly ignored, despite this explanation having been around for decades, since Henry Morris, since Edgar Andrews and it has been restated recently by Kent Hovind as well.

I have a hard time seeing how intelligent atheists (and other evolutionists whom I consider syncretistic with the religious system called atheism, most times the word is used) could so systematically miss this without conspiring in some way to ignore the obvious.

If Bill Ludlow had taken the time to actually read what I wrote (the first thing I wrote, marked Hans-Georg Lundahl, not the rest marked "Answered here"), he would have known I was not challenging the exponential mathematics, I was not challenging the decay rate of C14 either, because I was instead challenging something else. Namely stability of carbon 14 level.

Then Ken Hansen brings it up again:

"The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide molecules is about 1.3×10-12, and this value is ASSUMED constant for the main part of archaeological history since the formation of the earth's atmosphere."

And Bill Ludlow again gasses on, after a few takes about

"How could we possibly date something at 40,000 years if THE RATE OF DECAY only fits a 6,000 year old earth?"

I don't think he is generally retarded, I think he is acting on this particular matter!

Signing my answers and for quotes from Bill and Ken being by copy-paste:

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Basil's inthronisation
as bishop of Neo-Caesaraea

It seems I misunderstood him, he was blocking me. I tested on the other profile I have./HGL

dimanche 11 juin 2017

Some guys tried to make her ridiculous instead of responding intelligently

Here is a FB publication on FreakOutNation:

Christian woman explains why Dinosaurs are fake. Lol!
FreakOutNation 24 mai, 00:14 ·

It was shared on a group with Kent Hovind affiliation that I am in, and this with the following comment:

What YEC here thinks that she's right??

some and going to my own responses:

Q at -1:54
Was about whether fossils weren't just come up with after the concept of dinosaurs was invented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Q at -1:54, no, the first fossil classified as such was come up with by Steno:

"In 1667 Nicholas Steno wrote a paper about a shark head he had dissected. He compared the teeth of the shark with the common fossil objects known as tongue stones. He concluded that the fossils must have been shark teeth."

He was a Young Earth Creationist like most other guys back then in Christendom:

"Steno who, like almost all 17th century natural philosophers, believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old, resorted to the Biblical flood as a possible explanation for fossils of marine organisms that were far from the sea."

He also converted from Lutheran to Catholic and died in the service of the Lord, ministering to diaspora Catholics in Lutheran territories like Hamburg (less totalitarian Lutheran than Denmark and Sweden, I guess).

More fossils before dinosaurs:

"In his 1778 work Epochs of Nature Georges Buffon referred to fossils, in particular the discovery of fossils of tropical species such as elephants and rhinoceros in northern Europe, as evidence for the theory that the earth had started out much warmer than it currently was and had been gradually cooling.

"In 1796 Georges Cuvier presented a paper on living and fossil elephants comparing skeletal remains of Indian and African elephants to fossils of mammoths and of an animal he would later name mastodon utilizing comparative anatomy. He established for the first time that Indian and African elephants were different species, and that mammoths differed from both and must be extinct. He further concluded that the mastodon was another extinct species that also differed from Indian or African elephants, more so than mammoths."

THEN come the dinosaurs :

"In 1808, Cuvier identified a fossil found in Maastricht as a giant marine reptile that would later be named Mosasaurus. He also identified, from a drawing, another fossil found in Bavaria as a flying reptile and named it Pterodactylus. He speculated, based on the strata in which these fossils were found, that large reptiles had lived prior to what he was calling "the age of mammals"."

Note, Cuvier, who remained a Lutheran, was not loyal to Biblical timeline, but still a catastrophist.

Enter two Anglicans [I was wrong, Mantell was a Methodist], still well before Darwin:

"In 1824, Buckland found and described a lower jaw from Jurassic deposits from Stonesfield. He determined that the bone belonged to a carnivorous land-dwelling reptile he called Megalosaurus. That same year Gideon Mantell realized that some large teeth he had found in 1822, in Cretaceous rocks from Tilgate, belonged to a giant herbivorous land-dwelling reptile. He called it Iguanodon, because the teeth resembled those of an iguana. All of this led Mantell to publish an influential paper in 1831 entitled "The Age of Reptiles" in which he summarized the evidence for there having been an extended time during which the earth had teemed with large reptiles, and he divided that era, based in what rock strata different types of reptiles first appeared, into three intervals that anticipated the modern periods of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous"

And a little more about Buckland:

"Buckland was a proponent of the Gap Theory that interpreted the biblical account of Genesis as referring to two separate episodes of creation separated by a lengthy period; it emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as a way to reconcile the scriptural account with discoveries in geology that suggested the earth was very old. Early in his career he believed that he had found geological evidence of the biblical flood, but later became convinced that the glaciation theory of Louis Agassiz provided a better explanation, and he played an important role in promoting that theory in Great Britain."

And about Mantell:

"The Mantell children could not study at local grammar schools because the elder Mantell was a follower of the Methodist church and the 12 free schools were reserved for children who had been brought up in the Anglican faith."

which I missed to credit in above response:

I now added it in an extra comment.

A[t] - 1:11
she gives a lot of crumbled flakes of plaster and asks us to reconstitute it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A[t] - 1:11 There are indeed fossils which are found in that state ("turn it into what it is supposed to be").

Some fossil species are known only from a skull, or worse, from a hip bone, which could perhaps as easily come from a nephelim giant.

But other ones are also found in a fairly complete state.

[as cited below:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
-0:30 "If you want to keep your job, you come up with a brachiosaurus skull."

Sure, there are some fossils which are found in such a state. NOT all.

Brachiosaurus altithorax
Holotype (FMNH P25107): postcranial skeleton
Referred specimens: Partial skeletons

Brachiosaurus altithorax
on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

"Most images and reconstructions of Brachiosaurus are based on the specimen displayed in the Berlin Natural History Museum. The specimen was originally identified as an african species of Brachiosaurus however the specimen has now been identified as the dinosaur Giraffatitan."

"Giraffatitan was originally described as Brachiosaurus brancai in 1914 based from a partial skeleton discovered in Tanzania, until a revaluation of the specimen in 1988 by Greg Paul determined the specimen differed from other Brachiosaurus material and warranted a separate genus. The specimen in question is on display in the Berlin Naturkundemuseum (Museum of Natural History). As this specimen was once considered the most complete Brachiosaurus known, most artist reconstructions of Brachiosaurus are based on the Berlin specimen thus they are actually Giraffatitan!"

Partial skeletons and complete & partial skulls

So, you do have complete skulls of Giraffatitan, a k a Brachiosaurus brancai.

on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

However, they have a supposed relative, which is described here:

Uberabatitan ribeiroi
on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

Three specimina, no skull, only fragments. In my view it could be remains of a human like giant.

Now, if the guys on FreakOutNation had really heard of these facts, they might have given a similar intelligent response (minus the gigantic nephelistic suspicion on Uberabatitan ribeiroi) instead of just gaping and laughing at the idea of anyone being stupid enough to challenge scientists. They seem to be in a cult.

mercredi 31 mai 2017

Dishonesty on part of Creationist Group Run by a Protestant? + Discussion of Apollo the Delphic

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, here is one of the Biblical indications that Apollo is for real - as in a real demon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think I posted another comment here, on back when I read Latin, Aeneid VI, for a Dozent who is also a Catholic priest, and he brought up above after the description of the Cumaean sibyl had been read (a description of her being acutely possessed by Apollo, inspired by real scenes Virgil must have seen), and noting the above passage.

Was I misplacing this comment under another thread, or was some moderator deleting it?

Mark Jonczy
I fail to see the relevance. Scripture says what it says.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"possessed with a spirit of divination" = St Luke's words.

Aeneid VI shows a person in a similar position, getting possessed (while Virgil hadn't been in Cumae in Aeneas' time, he had seen sibyls) and Aeneid VI tells us the name of THE generic spirit of divination : Apollo.

In other words, this is one of the places where the Bible identifies the false god Apollo as a demon.

jeudi 18 mai 2017

What St Basil Was and What he Was Not Against

HGL's F.B. writings : What St Basil Was and What he Was Not Against · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on St. Basil

Dave Bestul
13 mai, 21:47
"The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another. Those who were too ignorant to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in sad consequences. Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the name of God; In the beginning God created. What a glorious order!"

St. Basil the Great
Homily on the Hexaemeron

Basil of Caesaria has the best homilies against evolution. Loved it 💙

Here is another:

‘Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish.’ (Homily VIII:2)

‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” [Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)

Dave Bestul
Excellent stuff, GB!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Basil is here of course referring not to ALL Greek philosophers, but to the pre-Socratics and Democritus.

As to Plato - some Church Fathers regarded him as a disciple of Moses.

I forget who said of Timaeus "Moses speaking Greek".

"Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish."

Pythagoras, still not Plato.

"‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures"

Note, he is here speaking against, not St Augustine, to whom BOTH letter AND allegory are holy, but against Origen, who was - reputedly at least - "allegory, yes, letter, no".

St Augustine was also against that idea.

"Basil of Caesaria has the best homilies against evolution."

Does he ever mention it?

Or, you meant "prefuting" it?

With Aristobule Adams

Difference between "sodomy" and "homosexuality" · With an Orthodox Priest on Lenin, Putin, KGB and the Orthodox I Met · With Aristobule Adams

Aristibule Adams
April 20 at 9:11pm
[my debate ended
April 24 at 4:00pm]·
Strange days - Catholics who believe what Catholics used to believe are now called 'Pelagians', and Orthodox who believe what Orthodox have always believed are called 'Bogomils'.

Some comments
lower ....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If Orthodox have prayed for me to not have a wife, if Orthodox have considered it sinful of me to deal with my inchastity by seeking a wife, well, then Orthodox have acted like Bogomils.

Aristibule Adams
What's stopping you from getting a wife?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not know what is stopping me each single time, why this girl stopped seeing me, why that girl stopped seeing me, why this other person would suddenly not look at my compositions, why yet another person had wanted to look at my writings in purpose of possible publication and gave it up - but these things happened.

So did things like being inconveniently in love with two girls at once, probably having sth to do with lack of sleep and loss of hope.

So did things like being interested in one girl, being a bit shy to ask in my situation, hoping for another girl and ONLY just giving her up when the first one was married or engaged to someone else.

If mother blessed me to do what I wanted, since I wanted to marry, unless something had interfered with my mother's blessing, I should be married now.

So, I guess some crook has abused Divine Liturgy to pray for me staying celibate.

Aristibule Adams
That's not how we use petitions in the Divine Liturgy anyway, so I wouldn't worry about that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is nothing like specific intentions?

Aristibule Adams
Not in the Eastern rite. We still have the optional phrase in our Western rite texts where the priest can announce special prayer intentions immediately before the Orare Fratres (et Sorores). But even that is something publicly announced, not private, and would be very inappropriate to offer an intention for someone not to marry. I imagine any laity who heard such a thing would report it to the Dean or Bishop post-haste.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What if a priest were to think of me while praying for the monks (mistakenly beliving me to be a monk)?

Aristibule Adams
God answers the prayers of the righteous, and the righteous only pray righteous prayers. It isn't magic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What if x has made sure that y who is righteous thinks I am unrighteous and also made sure I stumble on sth so that I really will be so?

Aristibule Adams
God is all knowing. In any case, we should pray not our will, but His - as God's Will is perfect. Fiat voluntas tua. Yes?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And no, for two reasons:

  • if I am not truly of my heart submitting to God's will, I am a hypocrite for saying it;
  • while a Christian in the state of Sanctifying Grace certainly is submitting to God's will, this does not automatically exclude his own will, except in cases of a perceived contradiction (Our Lord did not say we must act like He in Gethsemane each time we pray Our Father, more like we must have a general readiness for it).

The first of these is why, not having a wife and not seeing things go my way, I renounced the Rosary for long, not daring to pray the Our Fathers, content with three Hail Mary, if as much as that.

So, what if someone else's prayer is more righteous than mine, but not taking my real situation into account, seeing only the external obvious things, refusing to hear what else I have to say?

Aristibule Adams
God will not deliver on an prayer that asks amiss. He's not a trick pony who does what he's told. He says no if the request is wrong, sometimes because of sin, and sometimes for our own good.

Aristobule Adams

Aristibule Adams
I think for us, we still try to protect the faith of the weak. We don't take a Darwinist approach of 'the strong will survive' and try to help them all endure until the end. The strong should carry and protect those who are weak, rather than let them go. That's assuming they're not wolves - wolves we drive out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And how do you define "weak", "strong", "wolves" and, apart from excommunication, "drive out"?

Aristibule Adams
'Weak' - anyone whose faith is still growing and might be swayed by sophistry, hardship, scandal.

"Strong" - those who are established in their faith, and are not swayed.

"Wolves" - those who lead astray into heresy, schism, immorality.

"Drive out" - yes. Excommunication and not allowing to enter the churches.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"sophistry," "heresy, schism, immorality"

Would you consider Scholasticism or Creationism such?

Would you consider advocating marriage age lowered back to 14/12 limit such?

Would you consider going back to Roman Catholicism such, when one did not abjure it while becoming Orthodox?


Would you consider priests who forbid parishioners to read the works of a poor internet writer and composer and therefore contributing to his writings remaining off paper and his music remaining unplayed and his condition remaining poor, as a hardship?

There is more than faith, for instance hope and charity, which can suffer due to hardship.


Would you consider it scandalous of a parish priest to give a layman directives to say:

"you need to chose between marriage and monasticism"

and then completely IGNORE what the layman (not priest candidate!) answered and continue to work for the layman remaining in a pseudomonastic situation he had not chosen?

Aristibule Adams
That's kind of all over the place, and suggests personal issues? I don't know why Creationism would be an issue. It is the Patristic stance. The marriage age issue is Roman canon law - tell me when that age was established and why. Tell me if you know what the age is in Eastern canon law and why.

One cannot 'go back' into schism without abjuring Orthodoxy. That's an impossibility. I'm already a Western rite serving priest within the Orthodox Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Roman Canon law - inherited from Roman Empire, pre-Christian times. In Russia it had been 1 year higher per sex and was lifted to years more before Revolution, BUT in Russian (grammar of 1914, when there was still Yatch in locative and in Dyeva, the diminutive Dyevushka, meaning marriageable girl, still applied to non-married non-nuns from 12 to 30).

"One cannot 'go back' into schism without abjuring Orthodoxy."

I do not consider Roman Catholicism as schism.

You see, the issue in 1054 is so much less clear than that of 1517, so I wavered, but after some years among Romanian Orthodox, I considered Rome (as in Ancient Rome) had won the debate with me.

The WHY of marriage age : 14/12 is the medium age of puberty for men/women.

Aristibule Adams
Do you know when it became part of the Latin canon law, and what the Eastern canon law age is?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am certain it has always been part of Latin canon law, since Roman Empire.

I don't think there is a unified Eastern canon law, since Russia untraditionally raised the age in 19th C.

Aristibule Adams
Everything in the East that is the canons is part of the unified canons. We don't do revisions such as the 1917 or 1983. So it should be a simple question if it can be found in the Pedalion, the Apostle's, Father's, Councils of the Church?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not a great historian of Eastern canon law.

It was painstaking to get even this together - after my return to RC, btw:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Where Orthodox Canonists disagree with Catholic ones about Soldiers in War Communicating

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Added later.
" That's kind of all over the place, and suggests personal issues?"

I certainly do have some personal issues with clergy both sides of 1054, due to stopping me from earning money as a writer, due to stopping me in practise from marriage.

Aristibule Adams
What does canonical age have to do with stopping you from marriage?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As per directly now, nothing.

I was asking if YOU considered my view on canonical age as immoral.

I am fairly sure some of the Communist educated priests I was with between 2006 and 2009 did think that.

Never mind the fact I was interested in girls older than that, some seemed to assume if I wasn't ashamed of the times when it had been otherwise, I must be a great perv or sth.

Aristibule Adams
The canons are a guideline, but we don't use them as an excuse to flaunt civil law - to which we are obedient. The civil laws in most of what was Christendom are now that marriage can be contracted legally at 18, and 16 with parental and court permission when there is some great need. So, I don't think the canon law set that age as a recommended age *for* marriage, but as a limit beyond which the act would be null (irregular). It isn't meant to replace civil law either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It was the guideline for civil laws.

Spain had 14/12 limit 100 years ago, now changed to 18, but 14 if younger asks permission of a judge.

Obviously, Papal States had 14/12 to 1870.

If Nettuno had been in Papal States in 1902, I imagine St Maria Goretti would have asked Alessandro Serenelli that day "come on, can't you wait a few months" or even better, he would have made a more decent proposal than he did.

Austria had 21, but 14 with parental consent, for girls.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Added next day]
You might want to read this series, the one starting on this link (links to other parts on article):

HGL's F.B. writings : Marital Age and Teen Abortions

general thread

M. D. M.
The same thing has happened in Russia for a very long time. Thankfully the government is restricting these nutters now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Are you sure that is all there is to J-W in Russia?

If so, what does that say about Orthodox Christianity in Russia?

In Antioch, I can see how the Antiochene Christians can be marginalised enough to not be quite able to support all their poor.

But why would Orthodox in Russia be in a similar position?

M. D. M.
Orthodox Russia has been "under attack" from dozens of protestant cults mostly from the USA who sadly believe Russians "need" to be "saved". Also, for hundreds of years the Roman Catholic Church has been at war with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Romans send missionaries well versed in Orthodox worship to Russia. They set up churches that look and sound like Russian Orthodox Churches. Illiterate Russians have been tricked into joining these false churches. I'm not making this up. It's historical fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In other words, you think Uniates should be restrained too?

Is that it?

M. D. M.
Absolutely! Uniats have no business in Russia!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, so, if Russian Church has nothing to do with shutting up of J-W, certainly laymen belonging to it have.

BUT you have still not answered in what way either Uniates or J-W would be in a position to give so much help to poor which Russian Orthodox themselves cannot give.

M. D. M.
I do not understand your position. Russian Orthodox Christians have never "needed" saving from outsiders. No one who is Orthodox, Russian or not, can be persuaded to leave the Orthodox church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was asking you what the Russian case could have to do with Souperism or Rice Christians, see further up the thread.

M. D. M.
I do not understand those terms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Souperism : trying to convert poor peoples by alms. Rice Christians, people converted by alms.

In Antioch, which the thread is about, that is one thing, but in Russia?

M. D. M.
I think I understand now. I can only speak about Russian Orthodox. I am not as familiar with the Antiochians. I believe it is wrong for anyone to try to convert a person from their faith through "gifts". American protestants go to Russia and try to "save" Russian Orthodox Christians by giving them blankets and food. Those items are appreciated by anyone, of course, but if they are offered with the price of converting from the Russian Orthodox Church the price is too high. I would rather go hungry than lose my faith.

Aristibule Adams
Russia is still in recovery from the wild '90s after the fall of the Soviets.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
After 12 years of Putin in power?

Aristibule Adams
He's had a lot of work to do, and more still needs done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is why I don't think the ban on J-W in Russia is connected to Souperism, except if rumours from elsewhere - or Putin being incompetent or corrupt about economics.

M. D. M.
What is this "Souperism"? Is that something to do with soup?

Aristibule Adams
The ban on the J-Ws and other sects (Scientologists, Satanists, etc.) is related to criminality - they preying on people for money, abuse, breaking up families, etc.

M. D. M.
I don't think Mr. Putin has anything to do with the subject.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Preying on people for money" sounds like French legislations by atheists trying to stop people from giving donations to monasteries on death beds.

"Souperism" has to do with "soup" or "souper"/"supper".

M. D. M.
Thank you!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
M. D. M., you are welcome!

Same thread
below previous:

The link is broken.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I googled and found no online article outside FB.

There are two relief programs, but nothing else outside FB. And on the relief programs, I did not find the article.

Huh, odd.

Aristibule Adams
It's still on the Christian Post's main page, but the link is getting a 404 error now. I guess someone was unhappy with it.

That was my suspicion. Which disgusts me.

You know how fragile the emotions of evangelicals are

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wonder if it was emotions of Evangelicals - or Discretion of Orthodox?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
" Fr. Chehadeh said. 'So it is not a nice way, especially in this crisis, to come and to destroy the work of a church, which is for more than 2,000 years in the area."

Perhaps Orthodox got worried about Fr. Chehadeh's confusing "for nearly 2000 years" with "for more than 2000 years"?

I mean, presumably the Antiochene Church in Syria does not date back to AD 17 or earlier?

III In below, I suggested a certain hobby related to my economic issues to Fr. Aristobule Adams. Click to see larger version:

Still no reply on that offer, so far.

On Debating with Different Atheists in Different Situations

Evolution 2.0
17 février
After ten years of debating with atheists, would you still be a Christian?

[Linked to

what now redirects to ]

"After ten years of debating with atheists, would you still be a Christian?"

I have been debating atheists and other evolutionists + protestants for 16 years over internet.

I am still Catholic and YEC. I soon became and still am Geocentric.

Why exactly is the publication of Perry Marshall termed Evolution 2.0?

The internet is not the same because the written word lacks emotional wealth and you are often not invested in your connection with your interlocutor. I have atheist friends who hit me with every stereotypical talking point when we meet up and what's frustrating is that they not only believe that "absence of God" is simply a "default" belief (see the subthread of David Valentine's comment for a stunning example), but they also often go one further and extend this "default" "obvious" worldview to secular humanist "freethinking" altogether. So to even try to make a point I would have to express a view I hold that they consider so offensive and repugnant (wrongly in my view) that I fear losing the friendship, even though they do not hesitate to belittle everything I believe in and love in front of me without ever thinking they might be engaging in what they often claim to hate.

Why do you stay friends with such guys in the first place?

I am debating atheists over internet, but I am when confronted with that kind of type free not to engage in friendship.

(Slavic / Balkan*)
^what he said, if you really cant communicate with your friends no matter the reason then why be friends, i and my atheist best friend for example can have a meaningful conversation without pissing each other off

so basically you've shut yourself from reality, congratulations

NM It is perfectly possible to debate with serenity and kindness, without falling into rudeness and insults, even having very different positions.

MK - you mean engaging in friendship with atheists and giving up any resistance to their evolution memes is what it takes to not be shut off from reality?

St - you may be perfectly right, but MK just showed he was NOT the kind of atheist to do that, and you didn't notice, and how about telling that to the atheist friends of NM, instead of telling it to him?

* While I anonymised names behind acronyms, I thought it was interesting to note presumable heritage. For NM, some Jewish could be suspected, but not immediately, nor is it necessary. The ones I put in parentheses are linguistically certain, whether they live in respective parts of Europe or are American.

jeudi 11 mai 2017

On Statesmen of Europe (Elected Ones)

Macron, the newly elected French president, has no children.
German chancellor Angela Merkel has no children.
British prime minister Theresa May has no children.
Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children.
Holland’s Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Luxembour’s Xavier Bettel, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon—all have no children.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has no children.
So a grossly disproportionate number of the people making decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal stake in that future.

Adolf Hitler had no children.........that we know of. But I understand your point

Thought Hitler had that war daughter in Belgium? Or is that just (((hogwash)))?

No sir. But he was he exception to the rule if you will


No doubt the Boss would have been in baby production with Eva if things turned out right.

If they survived the bunker, perhaps they were, so much the better for them if so!


Perhaps in the future Whites will demand their kings be married with children before ascending the throne?

In the Middle Ages, precisely royals often had arranged marriages and while having children before getting on throne was not required, there was a general ban on anti-conceptive practises of any kind available - still in force, still believed by all, it is of course still there as law of God.

Under the policies of these Globalists, what non-Muslim children there are in Europe have no future.

Very interesting

I don't see the problem here. I mean, do we really want these people multiplying?

Yes, since their bad morals are from individual choices, not from bad genetics, and since with better morals in having children (I have been deprived of opportunity after opportunity of marriage), they might also have had better morals in politics.

We don't want to see *them* multiply--we want leaders that make decisions that have personal consequences for those they love and act accordingly

I agree we might not want to see them multiply in the role of rulers.

But I think they would do well to multiply in the role of family members.

"Macron, the newly elected French president, has no children."

Does former other candidate, Marine, have any?

2 daughters and a son.

Ah, that is at least somewhat better!

I knew her niece had one recently and is marrying or has married its father.

Louis, Mathilde, and Jehanne

Not bad choices of names.

I knew of course that a better FN former candidate had children:

Bruno Gollnisch est marié depuis le 24 octobre 1981 à Setsuko Takeuchi, une Japonaise3 rencontrée en France et devenue française par la suite49. Ils ont trois enfants : Cordélia, avocate, Alexis, officier de marine, et Claire3. En 2007, en même temps que leur père, les enfants obtiennent de changer leur nom en Gollnisch-Flourens3.

But of course, Bruno's brother is a Catholic priest, so you expect good manners there!

(not from Hogwarts)
wow have to copy and share that is amazing

(not a socker club in Lyons)
sehr gut formuliert.

(not from Hogwarts)
maybe thats now considered a virtue when voting in europe

EZ, I just found out sth about one great rival of Hitler, whom I prefer:

"There Engelbert met Alwine Glienke (1897–1973), a German woman from a Protestant family, whom he married in 1921.[2] The couple had one son and two daughters, with one daughter dying during early childhood."

From the article:

Engelbert Dollfuss - Wikipedia

Btw, a greatgranddaughter of Dollfuß I used to know on FB was voting Tzipi Livni in her other country - which means we have a clue why Hitler wanted Dollfuss out of the way : he may have thought politics was about genes.

Dollfuss was an autocrat in a negative sense; he didn't rule by popular decree and with and for the will/good of the people, hence few tears were shed at his dispatch

In Austria there was no popular decree.

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Austria fuit olim divisa in factiones tres ...

That was solved in 1938

In a bad way.

How could most EU-parliamentarians en EU politicians be described?

Self-aggrandizement and human megalomania cause hurt and harm to others, not blessing and joy.They are mere human beings, trapped in a human frame of reference. For such a human to seek his or her own glory is narcissism in purest form. Human egotism is constantly on display. And, if we are honest, we know that we seek our own glory as a reflex.

So most not having children, they decide "indifferent" to open the borders of the EU. They decide that its their "Legacy" to create a new race and their names become immortal in History. Are we allowing this to happen?

[Meme about this]

No share button.

(not from Hogwarts)
its a private post to his friends

[shared link]

I never thought about that.

(not a TV channel)
EZ : you are so right!

Didn't see this coming AW [AL-W?]

I need to share this...

Why not share the whole dialogue?

[shared link again]

jeudi 13 avril 2017

Repéré sur Facebook

À une de mes dernières connections, je vois ceci:

Conseils pour identifier les fausses informations

Nous voulons mettre fin à la propagation des fausses informations sur Facebook. Apprenez-en davantage sur les mesures que nous prenons pour combattre ce phénomène. Pour limiter la propagation de ces fausses informations, voici quelques conseils concernant les types de contenu dont il faut vous méfier:

  • Méfiez-vous des titres. Les fausses actualités ont souvent des titres accrocheurs tout en majuscules avec des points d’exclamation. Si les affirmations du titre semblent invraisemblables, elles le sont probablement.

  • Examinez attentivement l’URL. Une URL frauduleuse conçue pour ressembler à une autre peut être le signe d’un site de fausses informations. De nombreux sites de fausses informations imitent de vraies sources d’actualité en apportant de légères modifications à l’URL. Vous pouvez accéder au site pour comparer l’URL aux sources reconnues.

  • Effectuez des recherches sur la source. Vérifiez que l’actualité a été rédigée par une source de confiance reconnue pour son exactitude. Si l’actualité provient d’un organisme inconnu, consultez la section À propos pour en savoir plus.

  • Faites attention aux mises en forme inhabituelles. De nombreux sites de fausses informations contiennent des fautes d’orthographe ou une présentation incohérente. Lisez avec prudence si vous voyez de tels signes.

  • Tenez compte des photos. Les fausses actualités contiennent souvent des images ou des vidéos retouchées. Il arrive parfois que la photo soit authentique, mais qu’elle ait été sortie de son contexte. Vous pouvez rechercher la photo ou l’image afin de vérifier sa provenance.

  • Contrôlez les dates. Les fausses actualités contiennent parfois des chronologies incohérentes ou des dates d’évènements qui ont été modifiées.

  • Vérifiez les preuves apportées. Vérifiez les sources de l’auteur pour vous assurer qu’elles sont exactes. Le manque de preuves ou la référence à des experts anonymes peuvent être le signe d’une fausse actualité.

  • Consultez d’autres articles. Si aucune autre source ne fait référence à cette actualité, il peut s’agir d’une fausse information. Si l’actualité est relayée par plusieurs sources de confiance, il est plus probable qu’elle soit vraie.

  • L’actualité est-elle un canular ou une blague ? Il est parfois difficile de faire la différence entre une fausse actualité et une forme d’humour ou de satire. Vérifiez si votre source est connue pour ses parodies, et si les détails et le ton de l’article sont simplement satiriques.

  • Certaines actualités sont délibérément fausses. Faites preuve de sens critique lorsque vous lisez des actualités, et ne partagez que les informations qui sont pour vous crédibles.

Si vous pensez qu’une publication du fil d’actualité est fausse, vous pouvez la signaler à Facebook.

  • Cliquez sur en regard de la publication que vous souhaitez marquer comme étant fausse.

  • Cliquez sur Signaler la publication.

  • Cliquez sur Il s’agit d’une fausse information.

  • Cliquez sur Marquer cette publication comme une fausse information.

Comment les informations sont contestées :

Les actualités signalées comme fausses par les utilisateurs de Facebook peuvent être vérifiées par des contrôleurs d’informations indépendants. Une actualité peut être marquée comme contestée si ces organismes vérificateurs concluent qu’il s’agit d’une fausse information.

Pour découvrir la raison pour laquelle une actualité est marquée comme contestée sur Facebook :

  • Passez la souris et cliquez sur sous l’actualité contestée.

  • Cliquez sur Découvrez pourquoi ceci est contesté ou accédez directement au site web de l’organisme vérificateur indépendant.

Ils se seraient rendu compte que c'est une mauvaise idée de faire confiance à des morceaux d'opinion de Huffington Post? Bon, reste que là ils confonderaient "opinion" et "information".

Ou s'agit-il du phénomène "fausse actualité satirique" trop souvent prise pour des actualités en vrai? Là, par contre, il convient plutôt de connaître les sites satiriques, et ils sont souvent dénoncés comme tels devant d'autre sur le fil de discussion.

Par example Eye of the Tiber, The Onion Dome et The Onion sont des sites satiriques. Tout comme "The Babylon Bee | Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire". Entre ceux-ci, The Onion est "laïque" les autres trois sont Catholique, Orthodoxe et Protestant. Pour illustrer que Eye of the Tiber est satirique, il suffit de regarder l'article sur la messe primice d'un Père Justin Bieber. Comme on sait, celui-ci est autant peu prêtre que moi-même.

Non, les sites qui donnent des fake news pendant 364 jours par an (et peut-être des vrais actus les 1 avril?) ne sont plus un problème que des sites qui font des blagues chaque 1 avril.

En toute probabilité, par contre, il s'agit plutôt de contrarier un autre phénomène. Internet permet aux gens de découvrir points de vue autres que leur propre et ancestral, et notamment aux jeunes de découvrir un point de vue autre qu'un point de vue ancestral encore en vie et capable de se fâcher pour ça. Ce point de vue ancestral et fâché est surtout familier avec le repérage d'actualités, plutôt que des points de vue différents. Donc, ce point de vue déjà ancestral et encore en vie est capable de reconstruire par exemple une conversion au Catholicisme ou au Créationnisme Jeune Terre ou au Géocentrisme (trois positions qui ne se contredisent pas, d'ailleurs, un catholique devrait plutôt être créationniste jeune terre et géocentrique) avec une tromperie perpétré par une actualité frauduleuse. Assez souvent, ceci n'est pas le cas. Mais, ces points de vue déjà ancestraux exigent alors une rectification. Le site qui a communiqué son point de vue non ancestral en telle ou telle famille a été signalé à un point de vue filial qui faisait des recherches sur FB. Donc, FB est "responsable pour la proliférations des fausse actualités" ou des faux informations. Donc FB devrait faire quelque chose pour contrarier cette tendance "néfaste".

Et Mark Zuckerberg (qui avait fondé FB par un coup de génie blagueur et bon enfant et libre comme tout) est devenu trop vieux pour ne pas en tenir compte. On peut donc craindre que ceci pourrait être juste la première étape.

C'est déjà pas mal que c'est encore possible de savoir pourquoi tel ou tel vérificateur a jugé une information frauduleuse. Ça permet encore une certaine liberté de propre réflexion. Et si ça va disparaître ça aussi?

Ou, peut-être FB aux États-Unis n'a rien à voir, peut-être c'est une exigence pour les connections francophones ou dont l'ordinateur est registré en France?

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Jeudi Saint

PS, fatigué comme je suis souvent, j'avais oublié ceci avant de signer : c'est par contre très mal que le site encourage ses utilisateurs de juger les information en fonction du caractère "autorisé" des sites qui les diffusent./HGL

vendredi 7 avril 2017

New Debate on Angelic Movers

November 29th, 2016

Hans-Georg Lundahl
a partagé un lien.
29 novembre 2016
On theoogyweb, I got in a muddle about the speed westward of aether near Earth:

Theologyweb : Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?
[linking to page 9 where my own muddle starts]

Any suggestions?

Dean Edridge
Great, I'll check it out.

[He checked, probably, but gave no answer. I had to work it out without help from the group, Mach's principle comes to aid]

30 March 2017 - 7 April 2017

Groove Shack
I notice quite early in the thread your comment on "angelic movers"?

Why is this concept required exactly? I confess I have not read much further in the forum thread, you may have explained it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not sure it is totally required, after checking out with a Heliocentric that Earth circling round sun would work for billions of years, as far as added matter and lowered momentum is concerned, due to impacts.

Then as Geocentric applying Mach's principle.

But I am not sure they are not required either, since we were not talking about how planets influence each other, and what if some see "tenth planet" as a gravitational must, and it isn't there?

That would prove some non-Newtonian or not-so-simple-Newtonian causality.

However, required or not, angelic movers are a plus per se.

It brings me in line with Christian thinkers like St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas and a few more.

Groove Shack
Yes no problem, at the end of the day a Christian is going to reach the point in his explanations of the Geo-model (and creation of course) where they surely must invoke some kind of supernatural force.

Personally, my explanation for how the heavens started their revolution around the Earth is simply God's Spirit, as there is direct support for this in Genesis.

(Genesis 1:2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

We know that God created the Earth with water. And we also know that the water covered the entirety of the face of the Earth because later we hear about God gathering up the water into certain areas.

So the Earth is covered with water and God's spirit moved upon the face of the waters. To me I imagine God's spirit moving against/over/upon ALL the waters on the face of the Earth. As we know without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a sphere, this gives the impression of a circular movement for the spirit of God on the waters. An orbital motion in fact. Like God is sending His Spirit around the Earth.

So this concept of a stationary Earth and a supernatural rotational component is introduced very early to the reader.

I also notice modern science has no issue with the universe coming into existence with a spin, although as usual, they are shy to proffer an explanation of how this happened.


Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"

If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."

The Daily Galaxy : Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"
July 08, 2011


Whether the universe requires continuous supernatural maintenance to keep the momentum going is also doubtful according to Luka Popov:


"If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be generated. That same pseudo- potential then causes the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on it."

- 'Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions' : Luka Popov, University of Zagreb, Department of Physics, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia

LINK: Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions
Luka Popov 6 Feb 2013


Nice to meet you Hans-Georg

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nice to meet you too.

As to the DAILY movement westward, I think it is all God's work and you are pretty right.

It is the longer movements eastward in relation to fixed stars (a stellar month for moon, a stellar year for sun and so on, some involving retrogrades - there are no retrogrades in the daily movement - and also the movemens of comets) which I attribute to angelic movers.

I have no trouble with your reading on how all of heaven started moving, since that is about the daily westward movement.

The other, long-termier, movements, well, they didn't exist yet in Genesis 1:2.

There is Scriptural support for angelic movers too, in the sense which does not contradict above.

Job 38:7 and Baruch 3:34-35.

Groove Shack
Yes agreed, I think the initiation of the "proper" eastward motions of the sun, moon etc happen in Genesis 1:17.

(Genesis 1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(Genesis 1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

He SET them. Strongs concordance offers Set (FORTH) as one possible translation of:

Isn't this God setting forth the lights in their "proper" orbit through the firmament?

Again, once they have been set forth in their orbit it is arguable whether or not they would need supernatural maintenance to continue said motion as sheer angular momentum would be enough, regardless which way the actual fabric of the universe is rotating diurnally.


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Whether angular momentum would be enough or not, angular momentum is inferior to man in ontological dignity, and angels are superior to man in ontological dignity, so it is preferrable to think what is higher up, if not superior in itself (and balls of gas are not) at least has a higher immediate causality.

Groove Shack
I think as Geocentrists talking to opponents we need to explain all the dynamics in terms of known science as far as possible until we start invoking supernatural involvement. Just my personal opinion. You can spook a lot of people, especially atheists, by getting too spiritual too early.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Let's put it like this: talking to opponents is different whether you are arguing over the web - before an audience - or in private (including emails not intended for publication).

But one thing is like : if you think a thing is true, you may wait with saying it, but you may not deny it.

If I don't think the Newtonian explanation is true or the whole truth, I don't have a right to towt it as my own conviction.

I can refer to Sungenis, I can say "Newtonian vectors can be part of the reason, but do not exclude angels as the principal movers", I can do this or that, but I cannot try to master a complete explanation I don't believe in and use that for apologetics while using something else for my own very private edification.

Groove Shack
Yeah that's fair enough....I just wondered why specifically "angelic movers". I've looked over Job 38:7 and Baruch 3:34-35 and I honestly can't see it.

Where does St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas talk about this please?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There are two readings of Job 38:7 and Baruch 3:34-35.

  • 1) Stars themselves are alive.
  • 2) Stars have movers that are alive.

Ramandu and Coriakin (1), or (2) Oyarsa of Malacandra and Oyarsa of Perelandra, to put it in the terms of CSL.

In Paris, where I am, position 1 was condemned by bishop Stephen II Tempier 740 years ago, which leaves me with position 2.

In England, the condemnations of Tempier were adopted in all dioceses.

This means that all colonies of either England or France, and all former colonies, should avoid position 1.

However, if you are in a place neither originally colonised by either, like an Amerindian reservation or the states formerly belonging to Spain (Flórida, Tejas, Nueva Méjico, Arizona, California la Alta) you are free to prefer position 1.

Now for St Thomas Aquinas:

Comment on Job:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij

and here are resources available in English:

Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor - hanslundahl

And the place where St Augustine was mentioning it in passing was brought up by fellow Geocentric Craig Crawford :

HGL's F.B. writings : Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers!

(The link records our debate back then)

Groove Shack
Hans-Georg Lundahl Isn't there a third pretty obvious meaning to Job 38:7 that the stars are being compared to angels? It's figurative?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time stars are used to represent angels, both being numerous and pure.

Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

I you hold that Jesus actually is the morning star?

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star

There is plenty of figurative language in Job 38:7 and I don't think there is any need to take that particular verse literally or semi-literally.

It's interesting to look at the Catholic view of things but being a simple Christian I'm not feeling a burning need to pick apart the words Thomas Aquinas or Augustine on this subject.

What you've given me from the bible I'm afraid is not convincing at all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It's figurative?"

I don't think that is very obvious as the right answer, especially not if compared to Baruch or a place in Judges.

That Jesus is said to be "morning star" may be figurative, but may also mean he took over the job as "Oyarsa" - angelic mover - when Satan, "the fallen morning star", lost that job as falling.

Wonder whether it refers to Mercury or Venus if so.

The bishops of the seven Churches are to Jesus as man like angels are to God : emissaries.

That said, they certainly do have angels, which may be angels that also are angelic movers each of a star.

Also, not quite comparable to Job, since Apocalypse is a prophetic book while Job is getting quizzed on precisely Creation.

On your view, we shouldn't think of the "womb of ice" to refer to the ice age either, I suppose?

It is also wrong to consider Catholicism as one denomination and non-Catholics as "simply a Christian", though I suppose you know no better.

We are like Juda, you are like Samaria.

Check out John chapter 4 on what Jesus said at the Well of Sychar.

Groove Shack
So what your saying is that a figurative or poetic meaning to Job 38:7 does not even deserve to be on your list as number 3?

  • 1) Stars themselves are alive.
  • 2) Stars have movers that are alive.
  • 3) It's a poetic comparison between angels and stars.


"womb of ice"?

You've completely lost me there mate. That's not even what the text says "Out of whose womb came the ice?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, dealing with your 3.

What is poetic about comparing an angel to stars if neither stars are a class of angels nor angels carry all or some stars?

Dealing with apocalypse.

Suppose St John believed like St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and I.

We know that the angels of the seven Churches, as recipients of mail, were the bishops of these Churches.

The text figures very well if we consider that a bishop holds up the light of faith to the soul, like angels hold up the light of stars to our eyes.

Hence, all "poetic comparisons" between stars and angels can be considered as expanding on the fact that stars are anyway usually connected to angels.

We also know that book of Henoch at least was around some century or two before Christ.

Its astronomic book (which seems erroneous on calendar matters) explains the movement of the sun in this matter, there is an angel conducting it.

Hence, my mechanism of angels conducting stars was at least an option for those considering in some ways astronomy in the time of Christ. Well, this option was certainly not explicitly rejected by Christ in the words in the canonic Gospels.

Out of whose womb came the ice makes sense if you know how glaciers look. And if you think of the ice age.

This means "womb" was not an idle metaphor. There is perhaps not exactly anyone's womb involved, but a glacier going forth looks a bit like a buttocks first or head first birth. The words are poetic, not because they are inexact, but because they are exact. The frost also is not exactly engendered - but even so, it looks like offspring or harvest of sth, like the harvest of manna. Here too, the word is poetic because it is exact.

So, on your view, stars are not a lower class of angels, not a class of spirits just below angels and not moved by angels either. Where is YOUR poetic motive for comparing an angel to a star, if so?

I am not contesting that the Bible gives a connection, but if it were ONLY a poetic one, how do you explain it as poetry?

"do you hold that Jesus actually is the morning star?"

Satan is called fallen morning star in Isaiah, Jesus is called morning star in an epistle of Peter.

I think the word of God is moving one star which was previously moved by Satan before he fell (note, this means the fall of Satan was after day four, or after its creation deed - not all Catholic theologians would agree on that).

But suppose instead we are speaking of leading a choir of angels not connected to stars per se, the comparison also makes sense if morning star is leading a similar procession of stars, moved by their angels.

Therefore, the places you took cannot be used against angels moving stars.

Now I have a place which totally excludes your interpretation 3:

Judges 5:[20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Either looks like my 1, stars are alive, or my 2, in which case angels are using their stars not just as "candles", but also as "battlestars". How would you fit in 3 there?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I might mention here, as a separate subthread, I also have an extra-Biblical reason for taking angelic movers.

This allows the phenomena known as "aberration" and "parallax" to be a dance of angels holding stars, in time with but not necessarily in pace with the sun.

This, to my mind, is the simplest way to get around the distant starlight problem.

[No subthread here as yet,, but answers to previous were added below:]

Back to debate
where it left off on subthread.

Groove Shack
[missed this one]
"What is poetic about comparing an angel to stars"

Erm.....they are both up in heaven...being a permanent fixture thereof? They are both pure and true, and shewith the handiwork of God? They are both cloaked in light and glory?

Any number of things mate really. An unbiased, simple reading without any added influence from extra biblical writings and that is the clear meaning of the passage I feel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[added later]
I missed this one.

These are reason why angels would be more fitting movers of stars than Newtonian forces.

[back to]
Groove Shack
"Judges 5:[20]...How would you fit in 3 there?"

Exactly the same. Figuratively meaning angels. Either the angels fought for Israel from heaven....or maybe just a general reference to the heavens bringing forth some kind of advantageous weather...which has poetically been attributed to the stars.

You are reading waaaaay too much into that one my new friend. Battlestars? Really?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, the most classical interpretation would be things like Saturn giving cold and unfortune and Moon wetness and slippery slopes and things like that to Sisera - stars giving morally relevant influences, as in astrology.

If Judges 5:20 had meant only angels, no stars, how would you explain "remaining in their order and courses" a k a "in their orbits"?

Here is what I found in Cornelius a Lapide on the matter, if you read Latin:

Commentaria in Librum Iudicum : Caput Quintum

If you look at the right page, 143, and its left column, and go to middle of the longer paragraph which continues on the right column, you will find:

TERTIO Angelos qui ordinem et cursum stellarum moderantur, per eas contra Sisaram certasse.

If you don't know Latin, the context is how the words fit, and the third reason here cited translates as:

THIRDLY that Angels who moderate the order and courses of the stars fought against Sisera by them.

In other words, angels were using stars as "battlestars" to use a comparison from modern sci fi.

St Augustine - before and after 400.

St Thomas Aquinas - died 1274.

Cornelius a Lapide - Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen; 18 December 1567 – 12 March 1637 (he was a Flemish Jesuit and exegete).

Christ to St Augustine - 400 years. St Augustine to St Thomas - 800 years. St Thomas to Cornelius a Lapide - nearly 400 years more.

And the idea can be traced at least back to the Book of Henoch, canonic or not, which was extant c. 200 BC.

It's an idea which seems to be somewhat persistent, not just a passing fad.

Groove Shack
"If Judges 5:20 had meant only angels, no stars, how would you explain "remaining in their order and courses" a k a "in their orbits"?"

As I said...maybe just a general reference to the heavens bringing forth some kind of advantageous weather...which has poetically been attributed to the stars.

You say this is a persistent idea. Anyone in this group agree with you? Or anyone in general?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, in general we have the writer of the last classic and uncontroversial astronomic handbook which was geocentric : Riccioli.

He lists four options on how celestial bodies are moved : God moves them directly, God made them mechanistically apt to move, celestial bodies are alive, celestial bodies are not alive themselves but moved by angels.

The list of names he gives for this fourth option, which he considered the most common one, is VERY impressive.

So, yes. At least among those who are already in Heaven.

This group? Don't know.

Others at present living on Earth? Probably at least one or two fans of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien.

Here is my resumé on Riccioli, linking to the Latin original, if you are interested:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?

As to CSL, I already gave you references to the relevant works, Narniad and cosmic trilogy, by citing Ramandu and Oyarsas.

As to JRRT, the relevant part is in Silmarillion, a less known work, wherefore I link to my personal take on that chapter and especially his words to Naomi Micthison in an even less known Letter:

New blog on the kid : A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien

This would probably have influenced more fans than just me.

Groove Shack
"God moves them directly"

This is an option for Riccioli but in your opinion it can't be considered?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It's an option in astrophysics, but hardly an option for Job 38:7 or an option for Baruch 3:34-35.

Groove Shack
But for Riccioli it was...?....or not?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Groove Shack , for Riccioli it was a theoretical option which he rejected as less probable.

His most probable option was his "most common one", namely angelic movers.

Why does this seem to sound some discord in your ears?

Groove Shack
So him saying it was less probable means he rejected it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, he didn't reject it as impossible, he only rejected it as less probable.

He even considers it on and off true for stars whenever their angels want to go down to enlighten a man or adore the Eucharist on a Catholic altar.

Of course those operations are more fitting for angels than moving stars, nevertheless when an angel who normally moves a star wants to do such a thing, he can just leave his star in the hands of God and God will take care of it in his absence.

But God doing so all the time for every star seems a bit awkward to fit with Job, Baruch and Judges.

Groove Shack
I'm gonna leave it there Hans-Georg......nice chat :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fine with me.

You see
this leaves me a very nice cue for doing the mirror of the FB debate on this blog post.

mardi 21 mars 2017

Continuing the Debate with RT

Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs.

Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC.

I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them.

Respectfully, "Call no man, ' father.'" There is no such thing as a church father, no such thing as ante-nicene fathers, etc.

What's more, we ignore these ancient authorities when it suits our own doctrines. Why, then, call upon them when they say something you agree with? Don't we regard them as mere men, as capable of error as the next guy?

there is no gap indicated in the scriptures, only in the minds of those who have compromised their trust in God, having placed it in scientists.

The early Church fathers apparently were unfamiliar with the KJ that refutes the YEC.

Scriptures in the KJ found in Gen 1:28 and 9:1 clearly support the Gap Theory of "replenishing the Earth."

Of course, many reject the KJ which is a rebuttal of the YEC traditions of men.

Having a YEC theory should not be necessary because the theory that opposses of an old earth is not indicated in scripture, but rather in the science of man. That the earth is young is indicated both in scripture and in the earth itself.

DB, you may have missed my comments above--so I'm posting them again:

"Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs.

Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC.

I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them."

science does not prove the earth is old, it assumes the earth is old to fit their theories of uniformitarian processes.

that the earth is young is indicated in both the earth itself and in scripture.

catastrophism defeats the concept of uniformitarian processes.

nearly all of the geologic strata was laid down after the flood, caused by the flood.

all of the dating methods used by scientists are based on presupposed assumptions.

And your view of the possible times Satan and the angels were created and the number of days afterwards that they quickly rebelled?

So you also don't believe the Universe is as vast as it is for the accuracy of the light years distance to the various stars and galaxies is accurate also?

You're in denial, DB. It's not that you're denying "the truth," because I'm not claiming to know, absolutely, that what I believe regarding Genesis 1:2 is it. You're denying that somebody could believe in what you mistakenly refer to as the "gap theory" simply because the Bible says what it says. You keep demanding that I want some uniformitarian interpretation inserted into the Bible, despite my saying that uniformitarianism is bad science. You're denying that there is anything to discuss.

Given that, why not bow out of the discussion and let interested folks carry on? If, on the other hand, you're interested, then do more listening.

Did you see my comments, CT?

"The early Church fathers apparently were unfamiliar with the KJ that refutes the YEC.

Scriptures in the KJ found in Gen 1:28 and 9:1 clearly support the Gap Theory of "replenishing the Earth."

Of course, many reject the KJ which is a rebuttal of the YEC traditions of men."

I did see it, RT. I agree that the KJ translation allows for a "gap." Even better, though, is that the Hebrew makes a gap that much more likely.

there is no gap and no need of a gap, isn't that obvious?

The supposed gap occured between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. It's not indicated, but that's where it is placed by those who compromise their trust in God.

Who needs a gap? I don't. Nonetheless, it says, "And the earth became a waste and a desolation."

Golly, that's interesting, to me.

End of story.

that's not what it says.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void,

"BECAME a waste and a desolation AFTER the first flood to destroy Satan's kingdom on Earth."

God doesn't initially create this way in such a manner to cover the entire land of Earth with water--as He normally creates in a manner that is good and perfect.

no form because the land was below the sea, and void of any life at the time.

You're inventing your own theology.

I'm also following the KJ with "REPLENISH" which was used twice as it should to reflect the Gap Theory.

there was no need to replenish before the fall.

You're not reading the Hebrew, Don.

God's perfect creation was intended to last forever.

CT I'm reading the Hebrew translated by Hebrew scholars.

"formless and void"

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void,

The primordial earth was submerged below sea level.

Gen. 1:9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

you have your pet theology, I have the actual Bible verses.

But you don't use the KJ verses as I did that promote the Gap Theory and then tell me that you have actual Bible verses.

Intended to last forever?! DB, you're in disagreement with even "standard" doctrine, now.

as long as I am in agreement with the Bible, it doesn't matter what men profess to beleve. You are defending a theology rather than the Bible.

RT The KJV is an archaic translation of the Bible. It's concise and poetic, but not accurate.

We have newer translations because we have better knowledge of the ancient languages and cultures.

I understand your point, DB

At least you are not a YEC and also using the KJ.

What's your view re the ice age? Did that really happen or is it more false science?

I presume you and I agree that Adam and Eve were real people and not figurative?

Enjoy your weekend.

Why am I not a YEC?

The question should be "why is anyone an OEC?"

The ice age resulted from the excessive moisture after the flood, condensating into snow and ice in the polar regions spreading southward as the years progressed.

I meant a YEC and the KJ are an oxymoron.

OK, DB, then I'll say you're in disagreement with the Bible, irrespective of any man's doctrine, by saying that the perfect creation was intended to last forever. This is easily proved.

If Adam had never disobeyed, we may conclude that he would still be alive, and everything would still be in perfect order.

Thus, there would NOT YET be a need for a Messiah, whose blood has a purpose, yet we also know that "all things were created through and FOR him." You would have the Messiah waiting around, looking for something to do because he couldn't redeem an unfallen world.

In conclusion, it is proved that a perfect creation that would endure in perpetuity was not the intention. The intention was to elevate God's son, and thus God. Adam's disobedience was not only part of the plan, it was even unavoidable.

Good points, CT

You are correct, but Adam did sin and we do need our Savior. God has two wills, HIs perfect will and His permissive will. God permitted man to choose to sin and God's perfect creation was ruined.

If Adam had not sinned, he would not have died. That is stated clearly in scripture.

How very evil it would be of God to cause Adam to sin and creation to be ruined. No, sin was not part of God's perfect plan. That is heresy.

Where do you get ideas like that? Certainly not from the Bible.

RT, "Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth."

When? How?

"The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs."

You are forgetting chronology totally.

The scientific debate in 17th C was scientific on BOTH sides, especially the Geocentric one, and looked back at Church Fathers who were a closed group of Catholic Saints and writers who had lived and been canonised saints previous to the schism between saint Leo IX and Michael Caerularius in 1054.
And in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages up to this schism, there was no science for them to "fight against", since science especially as scientific research and debate only originated twice over after 1054, with the scholastics, and with Francis Bacon of Verulam plagiarising some scholastic themes : in Italy the scientific debate between Galileo and Riccioli was however not indebted to Bacon of Verulam, but directly continued scholastics. These are ANOTHER group of Catholic writers.

So "Church Fathers fighting against science" is a time paradox.

"Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC."

Science may have refuted some conjectures of YEC, there are others to replace them, and I am contributing.

"I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them."

Thank you!

"Respectfully, "Call no man, ' father.'" "

CT, Jesus didn't mean what you seem to think he meant.

"There is no such thing as a church father, no such thing as ante-nicene fathers, etc."

Yes, there are.

"What's more, we ignore these ancient authorities when it suits our own doctrines."

Catholic Church decided at Trent that we can't.

NOT when they agree with each other.

A Protestant who ignores Church Fathers when it suits his doctrines, he ignores them to his peril.

A Catholic who pretends to be a Catholic but ignores them so he can be Theistic Evolutionist or Old Earth Creationist as well as Heliocentric / Acentric is even an odious hypocrite.

"Why, then, call upon them when they say something you agree with?"

Because I volunteer to agree with them where they all agree, even if I didn't before.

Catholics at Trent and Orthodox at local but important councils of Jerusalem and Iasi condemned Protestantism over its rebellion against Church Fathers.

[As well as over a few other issues. Distinct from but involved in this rebellion.]

"Don't we regard them as mere men,"

No. Not I, I am a Catholic.

"as capable of error as the next guy?"

No. Not I, I am a Catholic.

CT, again:

"If Adam had never disobeyed, we may conclude that he would still be alive, and everything would still be in perfect order."


"Thus, there would NOT YET be a need for a Messiah, whose blood has a purpose, yet we also know that "all things were created through and FOR him." You would have the Messiah waiting around, looking for something to do because he couldn't redeem an unfallen world."

God the Son would not have needed to come as Messiah.

"In conclusion, it is proved that a perfect creation that would endure in perpetuity was not the intention."

It was God's intention that this should be possible, except that Adam's free decision ruined that part.

"The intention was to elevate God's son, and thus God."

He was, since Adam was walking with Him in Eden.

"Adam's disobedience was not only part of the plan, it was even unavoidable."

It was avoidable to Adam.

Genesis 2:17 the same day (read thousand years) that you eat of the fruit, you shall die.

Mark 2:17 not the well, but the sick, need a physician.

DB As to "The ice age resulted from the excessive moisture after the flood, condensating into snow and ice in the polar regions spreading southward as the years progressed."

I don't think this was the whole story.

You see, higher levels of cosmic radiation seem to cause colder weather. The "little ice age" a few centuries ago (1300 to 1600 or to 1700?) is coinciding arguably with a higher level of cosmic radiation causing organic objects from those times to be dated too young except after calibration.

However, a high level of cosmic radiation just after Flood is required to cause an about 20 times higher production of carbon 14 than we have now, because without a faster production of carbon 14 for some centuries, we would after these millennia still have only about 45 % of the carbon 14 level we have today AND have had since about 500 BC, since carbon dates match well dated historical objects.

This means that the higher level of cosmic radiation could well have contributed to the ice age happening faster than Michael Oard thinks.

I think it started after Flood and ENDED around Tower of Babel, with the Younger Dryas carbon dating roughly to that time (I identifiy Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe).

Not even Catholics agree with everything the ancient Christians believed.

You ignored the key point regarding the alleged intent on Yahweh's part to have His creation continue forever, perfectly. Since the universe was created for Yehoshua, whose purpose it is to redeem the creation from death, then the universe was created with the intent that it would need redemption from death.

If it were not so, then perhaps the only alternative is to say that Yehoshua didn't originally have the purpose of redeeming anything. All things were created through him and for him just because the Father wanted to do something nice for His son. I would say this is a tenuous doctrine. Or is there an alternative to it?

the universe was not created for sin. Jesus was the Creator and necessity made Him our Savior.

CT, the main argument has been answered by DB, only:

"Not even Catholics agree with everything the ancient Christians believed."

Supposing your mean Catholics what we universally believe and ancient Christians what they universally believed, so it is not just a matter of diverse opinions now and then, or of picking one Catholic from then and one from now and see where they disagree in free matters and say Catholics have contradicted each other, would you mind giving an example?

Doctrines should be founded in scripture, not the opinions of men, even if the are priests.

The Catholics wanted the Bible printed only in Latin, so that the common people could not decide for themselves, what the Bible teaches us.

When the Bible was translated into English and the other modern languages, the authority left the church and returned to it's rightfull place, the Bible.

"Doctrines should be founded in scripture, not the opinions of men, even if the are priests."

Scripture or apostolic tradition.

When priests differ, they may singly be wrong, but not all of them. When the Church Fathers all agree, they must be right, since that is involved in God's promise to His Church.

"The Catholics wanted the Bible printed only in Latin, so that the common people could not decide for themselves, what the Bible teaches us."

Historic factoid and has very little to do with the facts on periods when it can even be debated whether the Church was Catholic or pre-Protestant.

"When the Bible was translated into English and the other modern languages, the authority left the church and returned to it's rightfull place, the Bible."

Totally unbiblical, since the Bible doesn't call the Bible, but the Church Pillar and Ground of Truth. 2 Tim 3:15, sorry, meant 1 Tim 3:15.

As for 2 Tim, St Paul is speaking to a man whom he has chosen to be a bishop, a very early Church Father. He is not adressing these same words to each and every layman. And he is talking to one who had been not just reading the Actual Text of Moses and the Prophets but who had had Rabbinic instruction as to their meaning.

Under the Old Testament, it was obviously true that where Hillel and Shammai differed, they might each be wrong, but when all agreed, they had to be right.