Wednesday, August 21, 2024

The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin

by Damien F. Mackey (This article was originally written in February, 1996) Although the French Jesuit, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, died in 1955, his influence is obviously still being felt today. This is evidenced by the fact that two major educational programs in Sydney, Australia, in recent years - that of the Discalced Carmelites and the Northern Deanery's "Religious Education II: Theory and Practice for Parents and Teachers" in 1994 - have both included talks on Fr. Teilhard de Chardin. The questions to be posed here are: "Why does de Chardin still exert an influence on the modern mind?" And: "What sort of an influence is it?" De Chardin's Broad Reach The writings of Pere Teilhard de Chardin have embraced a wide range of disciplines. Thus today we can read books that try to analyse the Jesuit's so-called scientific views; or his anthropological and sociological beliefs; or his metaphysico-philosophical arguments; or even his theosophical, religious and mystical doctrines. In the minds of some, Fr. de Chardin is actually considered to be a Saint; equal (if not greater) in the loftiness of his thought to St. Thomas Aquinas. Others regard him as a mystic, for whom only the exalted medium of poetry was sufficient for him to express his seraphic aspirations. For others, however, he is nothing but a scientific fraud; one who had willingly participated in the Piltdown Man hoax. Or an incompetent in philosophy, his reasoning contradicting the most basic laws of human thinking. More damning still is the following view of him that was expressed by a writer in "TRIUMPH" magazine, after his having read through de Chardin's paper, "The Human Sense": As the reader goes through this longish essay, he will be struck by Teilhard's boorishness. Where he is not outrageous, he is insufferably silly. Whether he assumes the garb of the sociologist, the theologian or the historian of ideas, the result is always the same: the garb hangs in bulky and comic surplus around the shoulders of a midget. In only one pose is Teilhard really, in a perverse way, convincing: that of the anti-Christian prophet. He says that mankind, possessed by the utopian-secularist vision that he lauds as the "human sense", will ever more despise the Christ of papal teaching. We agree. And so it has transpired. The only difference lies in the side that one chooses". ["The Teilhard Papers II", Dec. 1971, 28. Emphasis added]. Strong words from that writer. Are they true or not? Was de Chardin really a bit of an ignoramus, whose only genuine - though dubious - claim to 'fame' was as an "anti-Christian prophet"? A Hitler-type in Jesuit's garb, if you like, in the sense that he was able to get away with the most absurd anthropological and sociological views (compare Hitler's Mein Kampf), because he bore a message that for some mysterious reason had stirred the imaginations of his contemporaries. In regard to this comparison with Hitler, recent writings have shown rather plausibly that de Chardin shared the same Weltanschauung as the Nazis; both having common roots in the occult Theosophical Society of the mid-nineteenth century. Most particularly, their views have been traced back to the school of Madame Blavatsky and her colleagues. In other words, de Chardin's 'metaphysics' owes more to theosophy than it does to philosophy. Now, one extremely nasty feature that both de Chardin and the Nazis apparently inherited from this Theosophical Society was its xenophobia: a contempt for what were perceived to be the 'inferior' races (in de Chardin's case, the Chinese and the Negroid peoples). Most relevant to the request of the Secular Carmelites, however (more than de Chardin's purported racist views, or his 'philosophical' quirks) are his opinions pertaining to Catholic Faith. What Was de Chardin's Aim? We do not need to rack our brains too hard to try to discern what de Chardin was bent upon achieving, because he himself has stated in quite unequivocal terms what that was. In 1936 he explained that his dominant interest was to create a "new religion", and to spread it: What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself and to diffuse around me a new religion in which the personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the soul of the world, as the cultural and religious stage we have reached now demands. [26th January, 1936; quoted in "Letters to L. Zanta", 114. Emphasis added]. The advent of this "new religion" - a movement that de Chardin believed would be "much more profound" even than the Protestant Reformation - would be achieved only by a complete re-interpretation of Catholic dogma. Thus he wrote only two years before he died: I have come to the conclusion that, in order to pay for a drastic valorization and amortization of the substance of things, a whole series of re-shaping of certain representations or attitudes, which seem to us definitely fixed by Catholic dogma, has become necessary, if we sincerely want to Christify evolution. Seen thus, and because of an ineluctable necessity, one could say that a hitherto unknown form of religion is gradually germinating in the heart of modern man in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution. ["Stuff of the Universe", 1953. Emphasis added]. Now, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can Catholicism be properly described by de Chardin's phrase: "... a hitherto unknown form of religion". So - despite what the Jesuit himself tried to maintain - it could not have been Catholicism that he saw as "gradually germinating in the heart of modern man in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution", but rather de Chardin's "new religion". How then, we ask, can any Catholic (e.g. a Fr. Ross Collings; or the lecturers employed by the Northern Deanery) claim to be able to use Teilhard de Chardin's writings for the enrichment of Catholic Faith? De Chardin has, by his very own words, admitted to having directed all of his writings and his energies towards establishing a "hitherto unknown form of religion". The answer is that those who enthusiastically teach de Chardin's doctrines have no interest at all in enhancing Catholic Faith. Thus Christopher Bounds, the Religious Education Co-ordinator of Mary MacKillop College, who lectured in 1994 to Catholic Parents and Teachers of the Northern Deanery, told those assembled: "If your kids become genuine Buddhists you've succeeded". (The writer was present at the time, with a witness). In regard to this false presumption that all religions - even the non-Christian ones - are equal with Catholicism, have not certain perceptive commentators on De Chardin observed that he was really the first to make eastern (e.g. Buddhist) mysticism attractive to the scientific western mind? "Today", observed John Paul II, "we are seeing a certain diffusion of Buddhism in the West". [Crossing the Threshold of Hope p.85]. Was John Paul II pleased about this tendency? Not on your life! "... the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it", he goes on to warn, "have an almost exclusively negative soteriology. The "enlightenment" experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man". (Ibid.). Not that the followers of de Chardin are about to be swayed by the views of the Holy Father, for which they generally show contempt. Mr. Bounds, for instance, seemed determined in class to undermine the authority of Pope John Paul II in whatever way he could; even to the extent of making such ridiculous statements as "John Paul II is not a teacher", because presumably "... he's never been in a classroom situation". Bounds also stated quite categorically that he was not going to teach his students about "Humanae Vitae", because it was beyond them. Nor would the Catechism of the Catholic Church be used in the classrooms. Soon we shall discover what de Chardin himself thought about papal encyclicals. De Chardin's Synthesising Idea If one were to look for a common, synthesising idea throughout de Chardin's writings it would undoubtedly be that of "evolution". For him, evolution was really everything, godlike. "Evolution", he wrote on one occasion, "is not just hypotheses or theories: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy if they are thinkable and true ...". We really need to pause here to take in that last statement. Having let de Chardin's words sink in, we can only exclaim: What a statement of breathtaking arrogance! Everything, he claims, every idea, every system of thought, "must bow" to the theory of evolution. Why? Because de Chardin says so. And he means literally everything, even Christ. Yes even Christ - according to de Chardin's jaundiced view - is dependent on the biological (and, may we add, scientifically quite unproven) process of evolution. Thus Teilhard wrote in "Le Christique" (1955), just before he died: "Christ saves, but must we not hasten to add, Christ too is saved by evolution". The Divine Person, Jesus Christ, dependent upon evolution for salvation. Not likely! But for de Chardin, who envisaged God, not as One who pre-existed, and who was really distinct from, His creation (as most Christians believe), but as nothing other than "the soul of the world", then the idea of an evolving "God" was an inevitable conclusion. De Chardin's Contempt for Papal Thinking Some decades before De Chardin had begun to write his books and articles, Pope St. Pius X had already - in his now celebrated encyclical, "Pascendi" (1907) - unravelled the complex thought processes of the typical Modernist, showing these to be quite subjectively based. Today, the expression "personal faith experience" is commonly used to describe this particular 'religious' attitude. What it boils down to is that the individual perceives himself or herself, rather than an external authority (Church), to be the final judge of his or her own private "religious experiences". Now it is this subjective approach that precisely motivated de Chardin, just as today it motivates those who follow and/or promote his views in the face of numerous warnings, bannings and even condemnations against these by the legitimate Church authorities. Religious subjectivism is likewise the motivation for the numerous followers of unapproved apparitions. What all of these religious subjectivists have in common is that they themselves want the power to determine their own 'spiritual' path, to map out their own course for 'salvation', according to their own timetable, without any 'obstruction' or 'interference' from the Church. But the Holy Spirit never ceases to guide the Church and to warn the faithful against the dangers to salvation posed by such attitudes. Through the writings and warnings of Pope St. Pius X, Modernism was exposed and unmasked at its very inception. For decades this pernicious system, rightly called the "synthesis of all heresies", was forced to go underground. However, with the popularisation of the theory of Evolution the Modernists seemed to gain a second wind. Pope Pius XII rose to tackle this new situation, insofar as it impinged upon Faith. Thus, in 1950, the Holy Father wrote in his encyclical "Humani Generis" words that - as we are going to find - are perfectly applicable to the thinking of de Chardin: Some will contend that the theory of evolution as it is called - a theory that has not yet been proved beyond contradiction even in the sphere of natural science - applies to the origin of all things whatsoever .... These false evolutionary notions, with their denial of all that is absolute or fixed or abiding in human experience (tradition) have paved the way for a new philosophy of error. [Emphasis added]. Although Pope Pius XII did not specifically mention de Chardin here, the fact that the Holy Father's description could be applied without any forcing to the Jesuit's thinking (e.g. his implication that even God was subject to the evolutionary process) was not lost on de Chardin's colleague, an ex-priest (Dominican) who had rejected Catholicism. Thus the former Dominican, fully aware that "Humani Generis" was condemning the very views that de Chardin held, and himself seeing no hope for fermenting these new ideas within so strong a Church, invited de Chardin by letter to join him in battle to change the Church from the outside. But de Chardin's schemes were more sophisticated than that. He was hell bent on changing the Catholic Church "from within". He anticipated, even boasted about, an imminent change within the Catholic Church "much more profound" than the Protestant Reformation (which had eventually gone outside the Church). Here is de Chardin's reply to his ex-priest friend: Basically I consider - as you do - that the Church reaches a period of mutation or necessary reformation. To be more precise: I consider that the reformation in question (and much more profound a one than that of the sixteenth century) is no longer a simple matter of institutions and ethics, but of faith. Having stated my views I still cannot see any better means of bringing about what I anticipate than to work towards this re-form from within. In the course of the last fifty years I have watched the revitalization of Catholic thought and life taking place around me - in spite of the encyclicals - too closely not to have un-bounded confidence in the ability of the old Roman stem to re-vivify itself. Let us then each work in our separate sphere: all upward movements converge. From the above, it is quite obvious that De Chardin knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to re-cast the entire Catholic system according to his evolutionary views. This, as he thought, would enable him to do away with dogma and papal teaching. The whole thing was conspiratorial. He would proceed with his new religion "... in spite of the encyclicals". It therefore comes as no surprise to find that the lecturer from the de Chardin influenced Northern Deanery, Chris Bounds, should have told his class regarding the then current encyclical, "Veritatis Splendor", that (said with approval): "Some of my colleagues call the Pope's encyclical 'Supercilious Veritatis'". In the light of the above, it would be folly to construe de Chardin's writings as do some, as assuming mere "poetic licence". His were the systematic words and actions of a man who knew exactly what he was about. "To lay the axe at the root itself, that is Faith", is how Pope St. Pius X had (more than forty years earlier) described the intentions of the Modernists. And judging by that famous post-conciliar remark of Pope Paul VI, that the "smoke of Satan" had begun to seep into the Church through cracks and crevices, the efforts by de Chardin and his colleagues to change the Church from within were by the 1970's having a profound effect. De Chardin Today What is the great appeal of de Chardin today, now in the Third Millennium? It is not difficult to ascertain why de Chardin's writings still have a strong appeal today. They offer to human pride the same temptations that were offered to our First Parents in the Garden: to be like God; to be able to determine the course of one's own salvation; to disobey; to wield power. Messiah-like, De Chardin promises those who will follow him an easy road to salvation. Having done away with, as he believed, the outdated notions of Adam and Eve (for de Chardin was a polygenist), and of Original Sin - even of God as we know Him - and having presumably replaced all of this with a transcendent evolutionary process by means of which all (God "the Soul of the World", ourselves) must inevitably reach perfection (or what de Chardin called "Omega Point") the Jesuit was then able to conclude that there was no need for a Redeeming Christ, because there was no sin. Hence there was no longer any necessity for one to follow the steep and painful way to salvation as marked out by the Gospels. De Chardin was in fact convinced that the world of his time had outgrown its use for the Gospels, with their old-fashioned doctrine of sin and the need for personal salvation. The Gospels, the "Imitation of Christ", he boldly declared in "The Human Sense", needed to be replaced: A collective optimism, realistic and courageous, must defi-nitely replace the pessimism and individualism, whose over-grown notions of sin and personal salvation have gradually burdened and perverted the Christian spirit. Let us then ac-knowledge the situation honestly: not only the "Imitation of Christ" but also the Gospel itself needs to undergo this correction, and the whole world will make them undergo it. Despite de Chardin's frenetic attempts to play at once the roles of priest, prophet, evangelist and 'Messiah', and to re-interpret the entire history and pattern of salvation that has been revealed to us through the Scriptures and Tradition, the road to Heaven remains the same as it has always been: the narrow, bloodstained way of the Cross, trodden first by our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, on our behalf. It is a road of suffering and self denial (Matthew 16:24); a narrow door (John 10:7). Christ, and He alone, is the Way to salvation, the Way to the Father, and there is no other (John 14:6). Anyone who tries to force another way is "a thief and a robber" (John 10:1). In so many places does the New Testament recall to mind for us the fact that one needs to work hard at one's salvation. It is not easily obtained, not even by the good. St. Peter, quoting from the Book of Proverbs, made this quite clear when he said that: "If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" (I Peter 4:18). So despite de Chardin and similar prophets of an anti-Christ mentality, the way of the Cross still remains the only way of salvation. And on this feast-day of Our Lady of Lourdes it is appropriate to recall the words that the Blessed Virgin spoke to St. Bernadette as given at the top of this article: "I do not promise to make you happy in this world, but in the next." No Cross, no Crown! Promoting a New Age ‘Jesus’ “[Rob] Bell promoted his next major title, The ZimZum of Love: A New Way of Understanding Marriage, on Oprah’s show, using a secular humanistic argument to try and override the ages-old tried-and-proven Bible teaching that God blesses marriage only between one man and one woman”. Apparently Oprah Winfrey quoted the French Jesuit, père Teilhard de Chardin, during a 2014 tour in San José, California, accompanied by Rob Bell. Firstly, who is Rob Bell you ask? Bell (with his wife, Kristen) is quite a piece of work, even for a one-time megachurch pastor. The following should make this abundantly clear: https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2015/02/21/rob-bell-stands-with-oprah-re-writes-bible-on-marriage Bestselling author Rob Bell, the former megachurch pastor who became notorious for his book arguing that there’s no such thing as hell, is at it again … this time taking aim at biblical marriage while promoting same-sex “marriage” via the new book he touted on Oprah’s Super Soul Sunday program. Poised to make more money from attacking another biblical principle, Bell, the former pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, told Oprah Winfrey that the American Church is just “moments away” from supporting “gay marriage,” proclaiming that the transformation is “inevitable.” Bell promoted his next major title, The ZimZum of Love: A New Way of Understanding Marriage, on Oprah’s show, using a secular humanistic argument to try and override the ages-old tried-and-proven Bible teaching that God blesses marriage only between one man and one woman. Bell’s wife, Kristen, joined him to tell Oprah that they are fully on board with the LGBT community concerning same-sex marriage, which is now legalized in 37 states … and counting. "Marriage, gay and straight, is a gift to the world because the world needs more — not less — love, fidelity, commitment, devotion and sacrifice," Kristen Bell told Oprah and her millions of viewers. In Oprah’s corner Pleased that the Bells are on her side of the same-sex marriage debate in their book, Oprah inquired what it was that made them support homosexuality in the sacred institution. "One of the oldest aches in the bones of humanity is loneliness," Rob Bell responded to Oprah, one of the wealthiest entertainers on earth. "Loneliness is not good for the world. Whoever you are, gay or straight, it is totally normal, natural and healthy to want someone to go through life with. It's central to our humanity. We want someone to go on the journey with." Ecstatic over Bell’s reply, Oprah posed another question regarding Christians embracing the controversial union. "When is the church going to get that?" Oprah asked. "We're close," the controversial author said before his wife chirped in, "I think it's evolving." The former pastor then articulated on where he thought the Church was going on the issue. "Lots of people are already there,” insisted Bell, who publicly “arrived” at his new stance on marriage back in 2013. “We think it's inevitable and we're moments away from the Church accepting it." …. Oprah Winfrey and the New Age ‘Jesus’ “As Oprah entered, it looked like a re-creation of the so-called BIG BANG explosion, which evolutionists believe created the universe. The whole background and the whole arena, with the thousands of lighted wristbands, made it seem like everyone was in outer space. As she entered, it appeared to be an attempt to recreate the supposed creation of the universe by the “BIG BANG.” An “insider” has provided this report of it: https://ezekielcountdown.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/an-insiders-view-of-oprahs-life-you-want-weekend-tour-2014-with-rob-bell-bringing-americans-to-the-new-age-christ/ An Insider’s View of Oprah’s Life You Want Weekend Tour 2014 With Rob Bell – Bringing Americans to the New Age “Christ” LTRP Note: The following “notes” were written by an attendee at the recent Oprah Winfrey tour in San Jose, California, Oprah’s Life You Want Weekend Tour 2014. Along with a number of New Age speakers was emergent former pastor Rob Bell. While the following is lengthy, it is well written—and we have posted it because it is a perfect example of how a false New Age christ is being brought to millions of Americans through two of its most popular figures, Oprah to the secular, Rob Bell to the young with a Christian background. Warren B. Smith, a former New Ager, was contacted by this attendee, who in turn agreed to allow Lighthouse Trails to post this. In Smith’s book, False Christ Coming: Does Anybody Care?, he describes how a false christ will deceive millions and millions into believing he is the Savior of the world through meditation. We are witnessing this happening today in both the world and shockingly, in the church (through the Spiritual Formation movement). Written by an anonymous attendee: Note: The quotes from the various speakers in this account are approximate, based on copious notes rather than precise transcription. FRIDAY DAYTIME (O’ Town) O’ Town was a pop-up town square. Inside, there was a gigantic “O” where participants could get a photo in the “O.” There was also a station for massages, make-overs, a kiosk selling Oprah’s books, various Oprah bags, t-shirts, etc., and the books of those “hand-picked spiritual trailblazers” (as Oprah called them) speaking at the conference. There also was an Oprah Show Photo Gallery with various celebrity photos of her guests over the 25-year run of the show. Notable photos included Oprah with President Barack and Michelle Obama, Marianne Williamson, Eckhart Tolle, Rhonda Byrne [the Secret], Dr. Mehmet Oz, and a host of Hollywood New Agers. Once inside “O Town,” attendees were given an “O Tour Wristband,” a special souvenir. They were told to wear it during the weekend. The wristband had internal lights that would later on be controlled remotely, once inside the arena. A Yoga Session also was held during the day. FRIDAY EVENING Friday evening was Oprah’s 2-hour New Age testimony. As the intro to her grand entrance, the entire arena was darkened, and everyone’s wristbands lit up into various colors, controlled remotely. They used these wristbands for visual effects (thousands of people with blue lights on their wrists, green lights, red lights, etc.) Also, the wristbands blinked when they wanted people back in the arena. As Oprah entered, it looked like a re-creation of the so-called BIG BANG explosion, which evolutionists believe created the universe. The whole background and the whole arena, with the thousands of lighted wristbands, made it seem like everyone was in outer space. As she entered, it appeared to be an attempt to recreate the supposed creation of the universe by the “BIG BANG.” Oprah started out the talk by quoting the poem “Invictus”: Out of the night that covers me, Black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul. In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed. Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the Horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds and shall find me unafraid. It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul. Next, she held up the picture of her “meditation chair”: a white chair surrounded by a bunch of trees. She said she goes there often and enters into the silence. Then, she quoted Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. She then talked about how “it,” “the voice” had been giving her signs all along to guide her life . . . She began by showing a cute photo of herself at age 5. She shared how she was born in Mississippi, born an illegitimate child. She attended an African-American Southern Baptist church where she memorized her pastor’s sermons and tried to re-preach them, complete with her pastor’s mannerisms, to her classmates. She joked that “that didn’t go over too well as you can imagine.” In her early childhood, she was raised by her Grandma Hattie Mae, who was a maid for a white family. Grandma Hattie’s only adult aspiration for Oprah was for her to find a decent family to work for as a maid. It was then that Oprah claimed, while sitting on her grandmother’s porch, she “heard the voice telling me that I wasn’t (going to be a maid) . . . it told me to not tell my grandmother that.” Oprah then shared about her teenage pregnancy at age 14, and her baby boy that died. At that point, she had moved in with her birth father Vernon. She had contemplated suicide, but her father told her it was her “second chance.” She then talked about the importance of living each day to the max, and how to be grateful for everything. It was at this point the arena darkened again, and the background slide was Newton’s Cradle (also known as an Executive Ball Clicker). This Newton’s cradle (or Executive Ball Clicker) consisted of 5 identically sized metal balls suspended in a metal frame, so that they were just touching each other at rest. Each ball was attached to the frame by two wires of equal length, angled away from each other. With Newton’s Cradle on the background screen, Oprah started talking about Newton’s Law of Motion. She said: “I love Newton’s Third Law, which basically says that ‘every action has an equal and opposite reaction.’ ” She then started the repeating/looping video clip, complete with sound effects, of Newton’s cradle. The looping video clip with sound effects kept showing the last ball on one end being lifted up by its string on one end and released, colliding with the other 4 stationary balls. The impact from the first ball was transmitted through the stationary balls to the last ball at the other end of Newton’s Cradle. For seemingly quite a long time (5 minutes perhaps) she kept looping that video clip with the loud “CLANG” every time there was a collision of balls. The time lapse between each sound of collision (“CLANG”) was around 5 seconds, so she was able to interject her talk and make points while the looping video was going on. Of course, while the video clip is looping, she wasn’t really explaining anything. She kept talking throughout the looping video clip, but always paused when there was the loud noise of collision of balls. She went on to say “Every cause has an effect . . . every action a reaction . . . your actions/intentions have consequences . . . every action has a reaction . . . Every action creates another reaction, which then creates a new counter action. Actions and reactions . . . actions and reactions . . . This is karma . . .” The main point she made was how she LOVES Newton’s Third Law or Law of Motion. She repeated several times with the loud “CLANG” of the ball/sphere collisions: “Your intentions matter . . . your actions matter . . . action and reaction . . . action and reaction . . .” The repetition of “CLANG” interspersed with her comments about karma was very mesmerizing, but in a very light weight kind of way, to warm people up to belief in karma by using very simple sounds and visualizations. Following the Newton’s Cradle illustration, she went on to talk about how her new OWN television network’s purpose is to help others become spiritual. She basically preached a New Age sermon and even sang the refrain of the hymn “I surrender all” but she modified it. The actual song goes: “All to Jesus I surrender . . .. I surrender all, I surrender all, All to thee, my blessed Savior, I surrender all.” But Oprah left out the “All to Jesus” and “blessed Savior” parts. She said the turning point in her life, when she transitioned from her Southern Baptist roots, was when she finally figured out what “surrender” meant. She said the moment that changed her was when she realized in church, she had been told surrender was bowing her knees (and she bowed her knees on stage), but she realized that surrender is standing up with arms stretched upwards, reaching upwards (and she did this on stage). She said that was surrender, not bowing the knee. That was pivotal for her. She said this was related to her shift in her spiritual life when she got the role of Sophia in Color Purple. She said she became Sophia, and it transformed her life. “The voice” had told her she was destined to get the role. Oprah said she wanted to make sure everyone understood that they are co-creators with the universe. That everyone’s intentions have power. Their words have power. That they all have their own path and energy field, but they must not mess or interfere with anyone else’s energy field. “Don’t interfere with anyone else’s energy field,” she repeated. She ended the talk with the last line of Invictus again “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” “Oprah said she wanted to make sure everyone understood that they are co-creators with the universe”. Now, according to Celia Deane-Drummond, in her book Pierre Teilhard De Chardin on People and Planet (emphasis added): In Teilhard's theology, Jesus Christ risen is more present to creation through his creative love than creation is present to itself. His creative love creates, makes creation to be created, not God, not Jesus Christ, but itself (Teilhard de Chardin 1956: 2-11). The Lord's creative loving presence to me makes me myself; he creates me; his love creates me, holds me in existence, moves me forward into the future. This is true of each of us and of every creature and of all creation. We co-create with God the Creator. Whatever we do in the direction of unification, of love, of building or maintaining toward Jesus, toward the Kingdom, participates in the process of creation, of the reconciliation of all things in Christ. We are co-creators with the Creator. …. In Teilhard’s “ineluctable” system, sins become just inevitable mistakes along the way”: https://onepeterfive.com/teilhard-chardin-vii-architect/ “As for Teilhard, the problem of evil is not due to angelic or human malice, but is an inevitable side-effect of the evolutionary process: “In our modern perspective of a Universe in a process of cosmogenesis, the problem of evil no longer exists.” The “Multiple” is “essentially subject to the play of probabilities of chance in its arrangements.” It is “absolutely unable to progress toward unity without engendering [evil] here or there by statistical necessity” [vii]. It appears, then, that there is no room for error or sin, as all is inevitably evolving toward the “Omega Point” drawn on by the infinite love of Christ”. U.S. nuns embracing “conscious evolution” “Cardinal Gerhard Müller, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith … warned them that if the nuns persist in pursuing such dangerous ideas, Rome could cut them loose”. One may find that religious wholly involved in charitable works can sometimes be woolly about truth (doctrinal) matters; whilst, conversely, the champions in matters of truth can sometimes be judgmental and somewhat lacking in charity. I recall that friends and I were once surprised to find those most charitable of the charitable, Mother Teresa’s missionary nuns, reading the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. When we commented critically about this, one of them suggested that we “leave him alone, he is dead”. Or something like that. I then tried a different tack. I gave that particular nun whom everyone liked, who was Indian - and who admitted to being “just a simple person” - some literature on Teilhard de Chardin that showed him to be a racist (and not highly favourable about Indians). The nun got a shock, and then admitted: “We need to be careful”. Teilhard de Chardin was xenophobic and a racist: http://oneaccordtt.org/news/1-latest/87-when-evolution-is-racist-ideology.html …. Later as a palaeontologist, he becomes convinced that there is not a single evolution from one stock. For Teilhard the different “races” are evidence of differing evolutions. It was his determination to produce proof of this which ended up in the scandal of the Piltdown man. This, proof of a separate European evolution, turned out to be a massive fraud. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote to Jaimie Torres Bodet (then Director General of UNESCO) concerning UNESCO’s 1950 Declaration on Race which Teilhard refused to sign. In this Declaration Geneticists had declared the biological equality of races. In his letter Teilhard de Chardin wrote: “The diverse human Races are not biologically equal, but different and complementary. …. Such a perspective, not on the equality of races, but of their complementarity by convergence, is the one thing which may explain the fact (historically evident) that before the modern movement of compression which has forced them to come together, the various human ethnic groups have followed cycles of development that were partially independent to the point where many of them would have remained stationary forever (or fallen tomorrow into stagnation) if they had not been revived …. by more progressive and younger groups. …. And even if certain spirits, insufficiently humanised, are upset because in the common human advancement there exists not only individuals, but groups which are more gifted than others, the group-leaders, what can we do about it? In Sociology as in Physics, it is necessary that we at last recognise that there are laws against which one does not play ….” (My translation from the French.) The letter is extraordinary it states clearly that “complementarity” and “difference” are not equality. “Convergence” is meant to be under the leadership of certain groups that are more highly gifted than others. In this “complementarity” and “convergence” Teilhard presents what by 1950 was known as the classic justification for the European colonisation of India and semi-colonisation of China i.e. their cultures were stagnant. As such they could not proceed to capitalism without colonisation by Europe. Evolution turned out to be not only science. It could be used as a handy component of racist ideology. …. David Gibson writes about the U.S. nuns: https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/us-nuns-haunted-dead-jesuit-ghost-pierre-teilhard- U.S. nuns haunted by dead Jesuit: the ghost of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Are American nuns paying for the sins of a Jesuit priest who died in the 1950s? It might seem that way, given the ongoing showdown between doctrinal hard-liners in the Vatican and leaders representing more than 40,000 U.S. sisters, with one of Rome's chief complaints being the nuns' continuing embrace of the notion of "conscious evolution." To many ears, "conscious evolution" probably sounds like a squishy catchphrase picked up after too much time in a New Age sweat lodge, and that's pretty much how Cardinal Gerhard Müller, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, views it. The German theologian bluntly told heads of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious last month that the principles of "conscious evolution" -- that mankind is transforming through the integration of science, spirituality and technology -- are "opposed to Christian Revelation" and lead to "fundamental errors." That's tough talk, and Müller warned them that if the nuns persist in pursuing such dangerous ideas, Rome could cut them loose. Yet those principles, and indeed the very term "conscious evolution," also lead directly back to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a French Jesuit who was by turns a philosopher and theologian, geologist and paleontologist. It was Teilhard's thinking about humanity's future evolution that got him in trouble with church authorities, however. Teilhard argued, for example, that creation is still evolving and that mankind is changing with it; we are, he said, advancing in an interactive "noosphere" of human thought through an evolutionary process that leads inexorably toward an Omega Point -- Jesus Christ -- that is pulling all the cosmos to itself. "Everything that rises must converge," as Teilhard put it, a phrase so evocative that Flannery O'Connor appropriated it for her story collection. This process of "complexification" -- another of his signature terms -- is intensifying and Catholic theology could aid in that process if it, too, adapts. Now, that's a perilously brief sketch of what is an intricate and often impenetrable series of concepts, but that language is enough to show why, as early as the 1920s, Teilhard's Jesuit superiors barred him first from publishing and then from teaching, and then effectively exiled him to China to dig for fossils (which he did with great success). In fact, most of Teilhard's works were not published until after his death, and in 1962 a nervous Vatican issued a formal warning about "the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his followers." Yet if few remember who Teilhard was, his views on faith and science continued to resonate, and today, remarkably, he's actually enjoying something of a renaissance. …. Goodbye to Adam and Eve, etc. “From one single stock He created the whole human race so that they could occupy the entire earth”. Acts 17:26 Kenneth Baker defends this biblical truth in his book, Fundamentals of Catholicism: God, Trinity, Creation, Christ, Mary, p. 145): According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were the very first man and woman. Thus, we read in Genesis 2:5 that before Adam "there was not a man to till the earth.” Also, Adam "named his wife 'Eve’ because she was the mother of all those who live” (Gen 3:20). St. Paul teaches the same truth in Acts 17:26, "From one single stock he created the whole human race so that they could occupy the entire earth”. Not so for Cardinal George Pell, however. Many Christians shuddered during his TV debate with Richard Dawkins in which - to the great surprise of Dawkins and the ABC’s (non-impartial) facilitator, Tony Jones, Cardinal Pell flatly denied the existence of Adam and Eve. He was doing the atheists’ job for them. One Protestant viewer reacted as follows: https://www.christianfaith.com/resources/george-pell-v-richard-dawkins George Pell v Richard Dawkins My son said he 'cringed'. My friend could not watch it anymore. I was not feeling at all well today so I stayed in the very comfortable leather chair, in front of the new LCD TV and watched the program. Why do I allow myself to do these things? It wasn't just awful - it was unsettling. And I was already unsettled! Yes folks; I watched 'Q&A' - I watched Richard (there is no God) Dawkins debate Cardinal George (not sure about my Bible) Pell - the most influential Roman Catholic in Australia. Yes folks; I watched and listened to George Pell declare that Adam and Eve never existed; they were a myth. Alas, if that was the only gaff I heard! …. Though shocking, this is hardly surprising considering that Pell, in 1967, presented a dissertation in Rome defending the theology of Teilhard de Chardin for which he was granted high honours. Susan Claire Potts summed up Teilhard’s own approach to Adam and Eve, and related matters, in her article for The Remnant: “Teilhard de Chardin and the Catholic 'Evolution'”, when she wrote: “Forget Genesis. Forget Adam and Eve. They did not actually exist. To Teilhard, the universe began from something—a je ne sais quoi, perhaps the God Particle the Cern scientists are trying to isolate”. Here is her feisty article in full: I was in the backyard, scissors in hand, checking my flowers. The roses were in bloom, and I wanted to cut some for the crystal bud vase in my kitchen. I walked over to the largest bush. It was so tall it almost reached the breakfast room window. It dwarfed the bushes on each side. Why is that one so much bigger than the rest? I wondered as I hurried over to it. When I got closer, I was surprised to see how bare the branches were. There were only a few blooms and fewer buds on the bush. But the thing’s huge, I said to myself. Where are the roses? Curious, I reached for the tallest stalk. It had leaves and thorns, but no blossoms. Green as the leaves of the floribunda, strong as the stem, and thicker than my thumb, I recoiled when I realized what it was. Although the branches grew beside and within and over the rosebush, the thing was not part of it. It was fake. And worse than that, it was choking the life out of the rosebush. No way! I wasn’t about to let that happen. I attacked the weed with a vengeance. As I yanked and pulled and cut the sterile branches out from my struggling rosebush, the metaphor hit me square in the face. The plight of the rose and the vigor of the weed are like what’s happening to the Church. A new teaching has taken root. The weed is Teilhardism, and it is killing the rose. It’s sapping its strength and crowding the rose out of its rightful place in the garden. If left alone, it will destroy the rose. Don’t expect the master gardeners to get rid of it. They love the Weed. They nurture it, extol its beauty, and feed it. Like the courtiers around the emperor with no clothes, they proclaim its magnificence: See the wonder of the Weed! See how lovely the color! See the freshness of the leaves! Smell its fragrance! Don’t listen to them. Don’t go near it. Let’s take a look at this thing. We’re not dealing with known heresies, with denials of certain points of doctrine nor even the serpentine modernism that infiltrates the Church and suffocates her members. We are facing nothing less than a bizarre new religion. It masquerades as Catholicism, renewed and reclothed for the modern mind—which makes it even more insidious, more difficult to pinpoint and excise. But it’s here, there’s no denying it. The Thing has risen up from the sea of unbelief like the Beast of the Apocalypse ready to devour the Woman. As I wrote in Against the Wolves the new faith was imagined and fleshed out by one man, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin[1], a world-enamored priest rhapsodizing over his baby—a reimagined Christianity. Unlike heretics, Teilhard doesn’t dispute this or that point of doctrine. Unlike schismatics, he doesn’t deny the authority of the Roman Church. No, he simply sidesteps the whole thing. He reinterprets the Faith, then argues from the reinterpretation. As Mohammedism has no history before Mohammed, Mackey’s comment: I have argued in various articles that there was no historical Mohammed, that Mohammed (Muhammad) was basically a biblical composite. so the new religion sprang fully formed from the mind of the rambling Jesuit. Just as Mohammed wove threads from the Old Covenant, early Christianity, and the Arab worship of the moon god Al-Ilah into a cloth called Islam, so Teilhard has sewn a garment of Eastern mysticism, speculative science, and spiritual evolution. Thrown over the Body of Christ, it lies like a shroud over the Church. Like every heresiarch before him, Teilhard laid out the philosophical roadmap. He ransacked the Sacred Teachings of our Faith, picking out an idea here, a dogma there; and then, like a diabolical sorcerer, he threw them into a cauldron with a pseudo-scientific bouquet of fine herbs and hung the pot over the fire to cook his poison. His prose soars, his erudition shines, but it’s not Catholic. He twists what we believe, sprinkling the admixture of disputed science and empty theology with lovely Latin phrases and quotes from the masters of the spiritual life. His disciples (who are legion) extol the brilliance of his work. A reconciliation of theology and science, they proclaim it a faith fit for Modern Man. It’s about Love and Progress and ultimate Divinization. There is no sin--error perhaps, but, no worries, it’s all being caught up in the forward rush of History. “Everything in the world follows the road to unification.”[2] Teilhard whispers words of encouragement; he offers a new viaticum: “Our spiritual being is continually nourished by the continuous energies of the perceptible universe.” Distinctions will fall away. The rocks, the rivers, the distant stars, the shimmering moon—all will be swept up in a great transcendent burst of energy. It will be the Parousia, the Second Coming: Mackey’s comment: For my own view on this, see my article: Beyond the "Second Coming" https://www.academia.edu/29837194/Beyond_the_Second_Coming_ the revelation of the Cosmic Christ—the divinization of the Universe. “Men of little faith,” Teilhard shouts, “Why then do you fear or repudiate the progress of the world?...To divinize does not mean to destroy but to sur-create.”[3] So the World is becoming Christ. I’m serious. That’s the goal. The Omega Point. Not Heaven or Hell. Not Judgment or Mercy. Where is the Holy Trinity in his work? Where are the Blessed Mother and the saints? Where are the angels? He even recasts the meaning of the Cross. Sir Julian Huxley, in his introduction to The Human Phenomenon[4], explains it for us: “The redemption of the cross had to be reconciled with the salvation of the world through active co-operation in the building up of the universe.”[5] Say what? The whole thing is a spawn of Hell, a dark system of belief that uses Catholic words, wears the vestments, and light the candles, but there is no truth in it. It is false. Don’t take my word for it. Pick up his books and read them if you can. They make no sense. Reason has been cast to the wind. Huxley goes on: “Teilhard uses convergence to denote the tendency of mankind, during its evolution to superpose centripetal on centrifugal trends so as to prevent centrifugal differentiation from leading to fragmentation:”[6] Get it? Everything is converging, everything is unifying. It will all be stuck together by sap. Don’t laugh. That’s what Teilhard calls it. He posits a “positive confluence of Christian life with the natural sap of the universe.” All things work together, not for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls, but for the realization of the Cosmic Christ. Jesus of Nazareth? Ah, he was just the “historical Jesus,” not the same thing at all. We await the Pleroma, the fullness of time, when in a great burst of something, the entire universe is transformed and the Cosmic Christ revealed. This is worse than nonsense. There is no salvation in it, no God to adore—only divinized Matter. Evolution is “matter becoming cephalized.” How do you like that? Rocks becoming conscious, lying beneath the Noosphere[7]—that imagined membrane on the earth’s surface, a supposed thinking layer superimposed on the lifeless layer of inorganic matter. It gets worse. Forget Genesis. Forget Adam and Eve. They did not actually exist. To Teilhard, the universe began from something—a je ne sais quoi, perhaps the God Particle the Cern scientists are trying to isolate. Over eons and eons the universe evolved according to its own inner becoming. Man appeared as an epiphenomenon, conscious, as the whole cosmos someday will be. Individual salvation is not mentioned. The Second Coming? What’s that? Teilhard would rather call it by the unfamiliar name, The Parousia. That way he can reinterpret it. We don’t have to worry about sin or repentance, virtue or grace. All we have to do is let ourselves be united with the universe. We must not be divisive or contrary. We must not stop this deifying Movement. All will be One. And peace will reign forever. I’m telling you—if you start thinking this creature can be domesticated, tamed to live peacefully with Tradition, you’re mistaken. This isn’t the time for gentle speech. The beast needs to be driven out of the Church before all the lambs are dead. It’s not like we weren’t warned. We were taught about the End Times and the Great Apostasy. We were warned of the Antichrist. We were told that hearts would grow cold and people would believe fables. The world has always been at odds with Truth, but now, a Trojan Horse has entered the City of God and laid waste the fields and the meadows. The fig tree is sterile, and there is no Glory in the Olive. Archbishop Sheen once said that we are living in the days of the Apocalypse.[8] I think we’re there. …. [1] Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., 1881 – 1955. A French Jesuit, Teilhard was trained as a paleontologist and geologist. His principal works are Le Phenomene Humain, The Mass on the World, and The Divine Milieu. Forbidden by his superiors to publish during his lifetime, his manuscripts were copied and spread by his devotees. His works were published after his death, and the Holy Office issued a monitum against them. [2] [3] Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu, Harper and Row, New York, 1960, p. 154. [4] The English translation was once called The Phenomenon of Man but man as a generic term for humanity is not allowed in the modern lexicon. [5] Ibid. p. 34 [6] Ibid. [7] Another of Teilhard’s neologisms. [8] Buehner, Jim, Is it Closing Time ST. James Books, Torrance, CA, 1980., p. 186 Not without reason did I use the phrase “Sheer Silliness” for this series on de Chardin! Thomas L. McFadden on Teilhard “It could be said that Père Teilhard was as much a poet and mystic as he was a scientist. It is no small thing to be a poet and a mystic (St. John of the Cross managed it impressively), but poetry and mysticism are not fit substitutes for empirical science”. Dennis Q. McInerny Professor Dennis Q. McInerny touches on this subject in his review of McFadden’s excellent book, Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism: A Discussion for Those Who Believe (2016): https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/review-of-creation-evolution-and-catholicism-a-discussion-for-those-who-bel when he writes: Evolution, theology and the Teilhardian heresy The book’s treatment of the relation between evolution and theology, which is the subject taken up in Chapter 7, is especially noteworthy for its discussion of the thought of Père Teilhard de Chardin. His not entirely felicitous influence, especially among Catholic intellectuals, has had the effect of leading them, many of whom were clearly unacquainted with the relevant scientific data, to see in the whole way of evolutionary thinking an intellectual hardiness, and a potential for beneficial wide-ranging applicability, which it simply doesn’t have. It could be said that Père Teilhard was as much a poet and mystic as he was a scientist. It is no small thing to be a poet and a mystic (St. John of the Cross managed it impressively), but poetry and mysticism are not fit substitutes for empirical science. In any event, Sir Julian Huxley, in the Introduction he wrote for the English translation of The Phenomenon of Man, revealingly refers to Père Teilhard as a strong visualizer, and does not seem to have much to say about the strictly scientific aspects of the Jesuit’s thought. A particularly perspicacious critique of Père Teilhard’s ideas appears as an appendix to Jacques Maritain’s The Peasant of Garonne; the French philosopher ends his short essay with this pointed sentence: “He was without a doubt a man of great imagination.” (269) The best book length study of Père Teilhard’s thought to date is Wolfgang Smith’s Theistic Evolution: The Teilhardian Heresy, which was published in 2012. Mr. McFadden weaves much pertinent information into this chapter, and in doing so builds a commanding case against evolution as a viable scientific theory. Humani Generis and evolution But for that matter the entire book is chock full of pertinent information regarding evolution and its many ramifications, specifically as affecting Catholic faith. I was particularly struck by the studied treatment the author gives to Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Humani Generis, a document which is especially important for what it has to say about evolution. It is often read without proper care, unfortunately, with the result that the ways in which it is sometimes interpreted are not consonant with the text itself. Mr. McFadden sets the record straight in that respect, and thereby performs a valuable service. He is quite right in saying that in the encyclical the pope is by no means giving anything like a blanket endorsement of evolutionary theory. The larger concern of the encyclical, as Mr. McFadden points out, has to do with the problematic aspects which are to be found in modern philosophy as a whole. The pope discusses evolution as a particular instance of what is worrisome about much contemporary thought. …. [End of quote] And, regarding philosopher Jacques Maritain’s opinion of Teilhard de Chardin in Maritain’s classic, The Peasant of the Garonne, John B. Killoran will write in “FALSE AND GENUINE KNOWLEDGE: A PHILOSOPHICAL LOOK AT THE PEASANT OF THE GARONNE: http://people.stfx.ca/wsweet/EM/08-%201992/No.%208%20John%20B.%20Killoran.pdf …. Ironically enough, the most powerful salvos of The Peasant of the Garonne were reserved for a thinker who cannot be considered an ideosopher, viz., Pere Teilhard de Chardin. For the generation of Catholics that came to maturity in the 1960's, Pere Teilhard was more than just a distinguished Catholic paleontologist. He was rather the living embodiment of aggiornomento, Catholicism's opening to the world of modem thought. Maritain writes that Teilhard had a healthy sense of reality -- indeed Teilhard's thought is permeated by an incarnational view of the universe. Nevertheless, like many of his scientistic contemporaries, Teilhard fell prey to the cardinal error of the modern era, the failure to make distinctions, for "the idea of a specific distinction between the different degrees of knowledge was always completely foreign to him.”39 In Teilhard writings poetic intuition masquerades as theology, with the result that the line between nonconceptual and conceptual knowledge is obliterated. What emerges is a sort of "theology-fiction.”4O How else is one to interpret the neologisms such as "noosphere" that abound in the Teilhardian vocabulary than as the consequence of an effort to marry a profound poetic vision to an "up-to-date" scientifically based metaphysics? While Maritain, of course, has no objection to a metaphysics that takes into consideration to discoveries of modern science, he points out to the disciples of Teilhard that if the appropriate distinctions are not made the consequence will be the proliferation of a false knowledge that purports to answer the most fundamental questions of the human mind but which, in the end, leaves it entirely barren. This intellectual emptiness is what false knowledge has instilled into modern life. ….

Monday, August 19, 2024

Noachic Flood, Ark Mountain, First Writing

by Damien F. Mackey Before the Flood (antediluvian), in the Beginning, Eden (centrally located where Jerusalem now is) was the Cradle of Civilisation. While, after the Flood (postdiluvian), new beginnings were made in, as we shall find, the region of modern SE Turkey. Early Genesis eyewitness accounts Neither before, or after, the Flood, was humanity’s beginning in southern Iraq, or ancient Sumer, as it is generally thought to have been, after millions of years of painful evolution. We have also been told that writing did not begin until about 1,000 BC. But that, too, is quite false. The Book of Genesis was composed from eye-witness accounts. Humanity’s ‘Cradle of Civilisation’ definitely not to be found in Iraq The following comments by Kristoffer Uggerud would be a typical conventional view: How Did Mesopotamia Become the Cradle of Civilization? Around 4500 BCE humans settled in Mesopotamia. Within a few centuries, the Sumerians developed what we today call the cradle of civilization. Apr 9, 2024 • By Kristoffer Uggerud, MA Area studies, BA History SUMMARY • Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, became the cradle of civilization due to its fertile land and the development of irrigation, which supported the growth of city-states like Ur, Eridu, and Uruk with populations over 50,000 around 5,000 years ago. • The Sumerians innovated with the world’s first written language, cuneiform, on clay tablets, facilitating record-keeping for food supplies and trade. This advancement, alongside their development of a numerical system, laid foundational aspects of modern society. • The decline of the Sumerian civilization around 2000 BCE was attributed to agricultural productivity loss due to soil salinization from irrigation. This led to the rise of subsequent empires in Mesopotamia, such as the Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires. …. [End of quote] Sadly, none of this is correct – the inflated BC dates; attribution of first writing; Sumer preceding the Akkadian and Assyrian civilisations; and so on. Southern Mesopotamia was neither the Cradle of Civilisation before or after the Flood. Before the Flood (antediluvian), in the Beginning, Eden (centrally located where Jerusalem now is) was the Cradle of Civilisation. While, after the Flood (postdiluvian), new beginnings were made in, as we shall find, the region of modern SE Turkey. Due to the after effects of the Flood, the low-lying land of southern Mesopotamia was not able to be properly settled as early as were more northerly locations. That is why so-called ‘Sumerian’ civilisation springs up fully grown, much to the amazement of evolutionary-minded antiquarians. It was a late clutch of settlements that had benefitted from the long development of civilisations elsewhere. More accurate to regard The Fertile Crescent as being, approximately, humanity’s Cradle of Civilisation: https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/fertile-crescent “The Fertile Crescent, often referred to as “the cradle of civilization,” is the crescent-shaped region in Western Asia and North Africa that spans the modern-day countries of Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and, for some scholars, Egypt”. Written records were kept even before the Flood The beginning of the Documentary Theory of the Book of Genesis was actually based on a correct premise. Frenchman, Jean Astruc (1684-1766), a famous professor of medicine at Montpellier and Paris, claimed to have found several distinct sources in early Genesis. And he was quite right regarding that at least. But it soon went all pear-shaped! Liberal scholars, most notably German Lutherans, thought themselves able to detect no end of strands and sources throughout the Book of Genesis, culminating in the famous JEDP hypothesis of the likes of professors Karl Heinrich Graf (d. 1869) and Julius Wellhausen (d. 1918). Jean Astruc had correctly speculated that Moses used existing written or oral sources in constructing Genesis. Sadly, again, those who came after him effectively slammed the door shut on any notion of Mosaïc influence by proceeding, in stages - and by the early 1800’s - to the view that the Pentateuch was written around 900-800 BC, centuries after Moses. An extremely well-educated and intelligent Dominican priest once declared to me that “Moses and Joshua wrote nothing, that writing was not invented until about the time of King David (c. 1000-900 BC)”, and this despite passages such as Exodus 34:27: “Then the Lord told Moses, ‘Write down these words, because I’m making a Covenant with you and with Israel according to these words’”, and Joshua 8:32: “There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua wrote on stones a copy of the Law of Moses”. Writing not invented until. c. 1000 BC, eh? What, then, I queried the Dominican - using the same inflated sort of conventional dating in which the erudite priest would have been schooled - to make of the brilliant Autobiography of Weni in Egypt, written prior to 2150 BC? What about Moses being “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians …”? (Acts 7:22) {This Weni, who was a Vizier and Chief Judge in ancient Egypt, exactly as was Moses: ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us?’ (Exodus 2:14), I have identified as Moses} The fourfold sigla, JEDP, of the Graf-Wellhausen theory has proven to be disastrous for biblical studies, “confusion confounded” as one scholar has well described it. This J-jaberwocky, E-eccentric, D-desolate, P-primitive, theory, quite lacking in archaeological awareness - pure Kantian a priorism - needs to be replaced with what might be called the PJ theory, of Air Commodore P. J. Wiseman, a wise and common-sense theory of the true structure of Genesis, based on sound archaeology and an acute awareness of ancient scribal methods. (See New discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis (1936), republished by Wiseman's son, Donald Wiseman, as Ancient records and the structure of Genesis: A case for literary unity, in 1985). Editor Moses did indeed make use of multiple sources to compile the Book of Genesis, so P. J. Wiseman would demonstrate, but these sources actually pre-dated him. Moses used the family histories (Hebrew toledôt) of his famous ancestral patriarchs, Adam; Noah; Shem, Ham and Japheth; Terah; etc; etc., some of which histories included triple repetition, as Jean Astruc had discerned - but was not able to explain correctly. The triple repetition in the second Flood account, for example, arises from the triple authorship of the document: “Shem, Ham and Japheth” (Genesis 10:1). It is as simple as that! The great Genesis Flood is an account by eye-witnesses, firstly Noah’s toledôt history, and then that of his three sons. Note that, afterwards, a separation appears to have occurred. Shem, formerly a co-author with his brothers, is now a sole recorder (Genesis 11:10). Psalm 104 on extent of the Flood The misinterpretation of the ancient texts by modern (say, Western) minds in regard to the Noachic Flood is well explained in the following piece by Rich Deem: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalm 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood. The Bible's other creation passages eliminate the possibility of a global flood The concept of a global Genesis flood can be easily eliminated from a plain reading of Psalm 104 … which is known as the "creation psalm." Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) [sic] (verse 2 … parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5 … parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8 … parallel to Genesis 1:9-10). The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: "You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalm 104:9)…. Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local. Psalm 104 is just one of several creation passages that indicate that God prevented the seas from covering the entire earth. …. An integration of all flood and creation passages clearly indicates that the Genesis flood was local in geographic extent. The Bible says water covered the whole earth ... Really? When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered all of planet earth. …. However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible nearly always refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground." …. We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets. …. [End of quote] ‘Creationists’, having arrived at their completely artificial - and sometimes quite laughable, if they weren’t so serious - interpretations of the Bible, will then insist upon one’s adhering to their peculiar ‘biblical’ Weltanschauung as behoving Christians dedicated to the preservation of scriptural inerrancy. {Admittance: Since I used to share these views, I ought to be more sympathetic} Well, I would suggest that no one would have been more surprised than Noah (and his family) to learn that he had once ridden out a global Flood in a sea-going vessel the size of the Queen Mary! As to the once common view that ‘there had never been rain until the Flood’, it has no solid biblical support as far as I can tell. And even some ‘Creationists’ now seem to have dropped this idea. For example: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/was-there-no-rain-before-the-flood/ Was There No Rain Before the Flood? Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood; however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out. While we cannot prove that there was rain before the Flood, to insist that there was not (and even to deride those who think otherwise) stretches Scripture beyond what it actually says. …. Noah’s world Those who approach Genesis with a Fundamentalist mentality will take ancient biblical phrases such as “the whole earth”, “all flesh”, and, unhappily, re-present them in global terms. St. Peter writes of “… the world that then was being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Peter 3:6). Now, rather than for one instinctively here to seize upon the phrase, “the world”, and automatically take it to mean a global world, one would do better to learn from Genesis what “world”, “earth”, the Book of Genesis had so far presented to us. We find that only a few chapters before the Flood, in Genesis 2. It is a “world” that basically constitutes what would later come to be known as “the Fertile Crescent” – also regarded by some, as we read, as “the Cradle of Civilisation”. It stretches approximately from southern Mesopotamia (Iraq) to Egypt. Practically every nation today, great or small, has its Flood legends that bear greater or lesser similarities to the Genesis or Noachic Flood account. See for example: https://www.curioustaxonomy.net/home/floods.htm Mountain of the Ark This brings us to SE Turkey, as mentioned earlier, where, I believe, humanity had its second start (postdiluvian). A pair of researchers have conclusively, for mine, identified the mountain of the Ark’s landing as Karaca Dağ. Previously I wrote on this: The combined research of Ken Griffith and Darrell White has caused me (Damien Mackey) to move away from my former acceptance of Judi Dagh for the Mountain of Noah’s Ark Landing in preference for their choice of Karaca Dagh in SE Turkey. The pair have strongly argued for the validity of this latter site in their excellent new article: A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb. (2) (PDF) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu My main reason for entertaining this switch is that the latter site appears to have been the place, unlikely as it may look, for the world’s first agriculture, including grapes, and for the domestication of what we know as farmland animals. For example, Ken Griffith and Darrell White write: This mountain, Karaca Dag, is where the genetic ancestor of all domesticated Einkorn wheat was found by the Max Planck Institute. …. The other seven founder crops of the Neolithic Revolution all have this mountain near the centre of their wild range. …. This was so exciting that even the LA Times remarked how unusual it is that all of the early agriculture crops appear to have been domesticated in the same location: “The researchers reported that the wheat was first cultivated near the Karacadag Mountains in southeastern Turkey, where chickpeas and bitter vetch also originated. Bread wheat—the most valuable single crop in the modern world—grapes and olives were domesticated nearby, as were sheep, pigs, goats and cattle.” …. …. Manfred Heun was the botanist who followed the DNA of domesticated wheat back to its source on Karaca Dag: “We believe that the idea is so good—the idea of cultivating wild plants—that we think it might be one tribe of people, and that is fascinating,” said Manfred Heun at the University of Norway’s department of biotechnological sciences, who led the research team. “I cannot prove it, but it is a possibility that one tribe or one family had the idea [emphasis added].” …. A 2004 DNA study of wild and cultivated grapevine genetics by McGovern and Vouillamoz found the region where grapevines were first domesticated. Vouillamoz reports: “Analysis of morphological similarities between the wild and cultivated grapes from all Eurasia generally support a geographical origin of grape domestication in the Near East. In 2004, I collaborated with Patrick McGovern to focus on the ‘Grape’s Fertile Triangle’ and our results showed that the closest genetic relationship between local wild grapevines and traditional cultivated grape varieties from southern Anatolia, Armenia and Georgia was observed in southern Anatolia. This suggests that the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Taurus Mountains is the most likely place where the grapevine was first domesticated! ... . This area also includes the Karacadağ region in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent.” …. The Göbekli Tepe Phenomenon This is fitting, because a site considered to be the world’s oldest, the now famed Göbekli Tepe (“Potbelly Hill”), is ‘just down the road’ (so to speak) from Karaca Dağ. And two most ancient sites, Ur (Sanliurfa) and Harran, relevant to Abram (Abraham), are also situated close by. It makes sense that, if Karaca Dağ was Noah’s mountain, then Göbekli Tepe (unrealistically dated to c. 12,000 BC) must have been a very early settlement - perhaps the first - after humanity’s departing from the mountain. {A tradition has Noah remaining on the Ark mountain for a century} Now the significance of Göbekli Tepe in possible connection with the Ark of Noah may be enormous. Klaus Schmidt, who first discovered the site, referred to it as “a Stone Age zoo”. It features an abundance of depictions of different animals seemingly in enclosures. Do we have here a representation of the types of animals that really were on board Noah’s Ark? Not exactly what we might have expected! No hint whatsoever of any dinosaurs – I definitely would not have expected them. No wonder scientifically-minded people laugh at this sort of desertion of common sense, that once again takes a “literalistic” approach to a global sounding phrase, “every living thing of all flesh” (Genesis 6:10). Noah simply would have taken pairs of such animals, dwelling close at hand, as he and his family would have needed for food and sacrifice, and to kick-start his new life on terra firma, until conditions began to revert back to normal. Boars, lions, bulls, foxes, gazelles, birds (cranes, vultures), snakes (cf. Genesis 7:8): “Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground …”. All of these and more are depicted at the Göbekli Tepe site. Apropos of this, we read at: https://nt.am/en/news/221107/ Gobekli Tepe, Noah’s Ark & Lost Atlantis …. Meanwhile, where else but in Noah’s Ark can we find a menagerie as eclectic as the one portrayed on the megaliths of Gobekli Tepe – a menagerie that includes spiders, scorpions and snakes (‘every creeping thing of the earth’), birds and cattle (‘fowls after their kind, and cattle after their kind’), and foxes, felines, goats, sheep, gazelles, boars, bears, etc, etc (in short – as Genesis 6: 20 has it, ‘every kind of animal and every kind of creature’)? Likewise we read in the Bible that Noah sacrificed some of the animals and birds that he had just saved from the flood as an offering to God. At Gobekli Tepe archaeologists have found the butchered bones of many of the animal species depicted on the megalithic pillars. Further highly recommended reading: https://archaeotravel.eu/noahs-beasts-released-on-the-hills-of-gobekli-tepe/ “Noah’s Beasts Released on the Hills of Göbekli Tepe”, by Joanna Pyrgies. Where did Noah build and launch the Ark? This appears to be a largely neglected question and there does not seem to be much at all in the way of legend or tradition to help one answer it. The types of animals depicted at Göbekli Tepe might provide geographical clues for some enterprising future researchers. Armadillos, for instance, are apparently not native to the Göbekli Tepe region. There is a tradition that Noah had had to flee to “Egypt” (whatever that land was like, and called, back then) to escape the violence of the age. (“Nu (/nu/ “watery one”), also called Nun (/nu:n/ “inert one”) - a name somewhat like Noah - is the deification of the primordial watery abyss in ancient Egyptian religion). Did Noah then return and, like Moses, who built the Ark of the Covenant at the Holy Mountain (Har Karkom near the Paran desert), build the great Ark there? Who knows? It is a question that still needs to be answered. I just like the symmetry of it. For Moses is clearly presented as “a new Noah” in the Book of Exodus (on this, see Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11, 1984, by Isaac M. Kikawada and Arthur Quinn). But there is far more to Göbekli Tepe than just animals. Of special interest to Australians might be certain symbols that the site has in common with our aboriginals. Ancient Australians – culture going south Previously I wrote: Great Gobbling Turkeys! There’s an archaeological site in Turkey, at Göbekli Tepe, that has palaeontologists scratching their collective heads. Dated to as early as 12,000 – 10,000 BC, the site exhibits cultural and technological advances that ought not to have occurred during a phase in human evolution (supposedly) when man was still just a primitive hunter-gatherer. “History is Wrong” declares one site regarding “The Mystery of Gobekli Tepe” (2018): https://coolinterestingstuff.com/the-mystery-of-gobekli-tepe …. many have proposed that Gobekli Tepe can even be a temple inside the Biblical Eden of Genesis. Is it possible that what we know about the ‘uncivilized and primitive’ prehistoric men is not at all true? Is it possible that advanced civilizations existed before 6000 BCE and their tracks are simply lost in time? Or is it possible that extra-terrestrials interfered and helped men to build monuments throughout the history of humanity? The questions are certainly compelling. Man was supposed to have been a primitive hunter-gatherer at the time of the sites’ construction. Gobekli Tepe’s presence currently predates what science has taught would be essential in building something on the scale such as those structures. For instance, the site appears before the agreed upon dates for the inventions of art and engravings; it even predates man working with metals and pottery but features evidence of all of these. …. [End of quote] This site finds it all so incomprehensible as to have to resort to the extreme suggestion of ancient aliens. But forget those large palaeontological numbers (12,000, 10,000) variously suggested for the BC age of Göbekli Tepe. These people play with, and throw away, 100’s and 1,000’s, like reckless gamblers. Australia’s Mungo Man, for instance, was dated to 60,000 BC and then, in the space of a week, dropped to 40,000 BC. Nobody seemed to raise a Neanderthalian eyebrow. Creationist Dr. John Osgood has made an impressive start towards sorting out the Stone Ages in his excellent series: “A Better Model for the Stone Age” (pts. 1 and 2): https://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age https://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age-part-2 The Acheulean era, which according to Pierto Gaietto, impacted upon the Göbekli Tepe masonry: “Regarding the topic of evolution in general I am of the opinion that the strong tendency towards the dressing of large stones at Göbekli Tepe had its origin in the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian culture”, has been placed by Dr. Osgood during the dispersal after the Noachic Flood. Acheulean The characteristic feature of this culture was, of course, the large hand axe prominent in it. Comment has already been made about the possible relationship between the virgin forests, an early spreading people, and the necessity to use hand-axes in much of their culture. The widespread common relationship of these tools in Europe, Asia and Northern Africa certainly is not inconsistent with the biblical model of the recent origin of the spread of people from the Middle East into diverse places having initially similar cultures. There does seem to be a definite stratigraphic relationship between the so-called Paleolithic strata - Acheulian, Mousterian and Aurignacian in ascending order. This, however, does not indicate that they were cultures that succeeded one another all over the country, but the principle of mushrooming may legitimately be investigated here as in the Mesopotamian Chalcolithic. In other words, the superposition of one stratum on the other may only be a measurement of the cultures in one dimension. It fails to come to terms with the possible horizontal contemporaneity of at least the last two of these cultures, the Mousterian and the Aurignacian. …. [End of quote] Most striking of all are the art-works and symbols common to far-away Australian Aboriginals, so much so that author Bruce Fenton has been prompted to query whether Göbekli Tepe may actually have been an Australian Aboriginal site: Following the typical evolutionary view, though, which requires much time for the human development from ape-man, Bruce Fenton must locate the origins of the Göbekli Tepe culture down south in Australia, before its having arrived at the degree of sophistication enabling for the spread of that culture in the far north (e.g. Turkey). A biblical view, instead, would have cultures like Göbekli Tepe emanating at a stage after the Flood from an already fairly sophisticated antediluvian world (Genesis 4:20-22) – Tubal-Cain, for instance, forged implements of copper and iron. Those who later became the Australian Aboriginals - who were not just one people, but many tribes/nations with different languages - would have absorbed this, and other northern cultures (e.g. Aboriginal art connects also with the ‘Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia), and carried the vestiges of these in their long journeys southwards, inevitably losing much of that knowledge over time and distance. Contrary to Bruce Fenton, then, Australian aboriginality is a cultural devolution, rather than an evolution. Ian Wilson, exploring the Lost World of the Kimberley (2006), the northernmost of the nine regions of Western Australia, has pointed out striking similarities between art figures of the Mesopotamian ‘Ubaid culture and the Kimberley’s aboriginal art figures. The Australian Aboriginal languages apparently have some affinity with ancient Sumerian: http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/cser.pdf Hungarian language belongs to the family of agglutinative languages. Officially it is a member of the Finno-Ugric language family. Structurally similar – although in a very distant relationship with it – are the Turkish, the Dravidian groups of languages, the Japanese and the Korean in the Far-East and the Basque in Europe. A large portion of ancient languages were agglutinative in their nature, such like the Sumerian, Pelagic, Etruscan, as well as aboriginal languages on the American and Australian continents. …. [End of quotes] World Economic Forum’s interference at Göbekli Tepe “He who controls the past controls the future”. George Orwell Political and national agenda do not sit easily with such archaeological sites as Ebla and Göbekli Tepe, whose findings may support the Bible, a Hebrew (Jewish) book, anathema to the Syrian government, on the one hand, that wants to represent Ebla as a purely Syrian kingdom, and anathema to the World Economic Forum (WEF), on the other hand, that wants to control the narrative about human origins and about virtually everything else. So the WEF has put a lid on Göbekli Tepe. Shockingly, we learn at: https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPNgGnUrCKM You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update …. 00:00:00 - 00:20:00 In the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the speaker expresses shock over the slow progress of excavations at the ancient site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, which is the world's oldest and largest megalithic site, dating back approximately 11,600 years. The site covers an area of approximately 22 acres and consists of over 200 T-shaped pillars, some reaching heights of nearly 20 ft and weighing up to 22,000 lbs each. Despite its size and age, little is known about who built it or when. The speaker also shares concerns over recent developments, such as a partnership between the site and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2018, which has led to the preservation of the site and the construction of tourism infrastructure, but has hindered full excavation efforts. The speaker also notes intriguing similarities between certain aspects of Gobekli Tepe and other ancient sites around the world, fueling speculation about a lost ancient global connection. The speaker encourages further investigation and excavation at the site and invites viewers to join the conversation. …. • 00:00:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the speaker expresses his shock over new information regarding the world's oldest and largest megalithic site, Gobekli Tepe, located in Turkey. …. However, the mystery deepens as historians previously believed that something this old and sophisticated couldn't exist, and it's unclear how such a civilization could have achieved this and what motivated them to do so. Additionally, only a small percentage of the site has been excavated, with only six of the 20 known circular sections or enclosures having been fully excavated, and many more areas remain unexplored. The speaker emphasizes that only 5% of the site has been excavated, a figure first reported in 2008, and gives credit to Graham Hancock for bringing international attention to the site through his books and podcast appearances. • 00:05:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the speaker expresses his surprise that the excavation progress at the ancient site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey has not improved since 2017, despite excavations beginning nearly three decades ago. He was initially investigating if the 5% excavation figure had changed, but learned that it had not. The speaker then shares that recent visitors to the site, including author Hugh Newman, have suggested that future generations may focus on excavations at neighboring sites instead. The speaker's investigation led him to discover that the Dogus Group, a large Turkish conglomerate, has a partnership deal to oversee excavations and tourism management at Gobekli Tepe since 2016, with a generous donation of $15 million for ongoing excavations. The speaker finds it disturbing that the focus seems to be on preserving the site and establishing tourism infrastructure rather than increasing excavation efforts. …. • 00:10:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the speaker reveals that a 20-year partnership between the ancient site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey and the World Economic Forum (WEF) was announced at the WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in 2018. The CEO of the Dogus Group, Fet Sahen, who is a Turkish billionaire and a longtime WEF member, was involved in the deal. The speaker expresses surprise that such a partnership existed, as it involves the oldest and most mysterious structure in human history. The infrastructure developed for tourism and preservation, including protective roofs and walkways, has obstructed parts of the site and impeded its full excavation. The speaker also questions when the orchards located in the midst of ruins were planted and whether any ancient ruins lie underneath them. Additionally, 900 miles of walkways and roads were constructed after the partnership began, some of which destroyed ruins at the site. The speaker implies that the WEF's involvement in the management and excavations of Gobekli Tepe raises questions about their motives and goals. • 00:15:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the widow of archaeologist CLA Schmidt, who was the first to excavate at Gobekli Tepe until her husband's passing in 2014, expressed deep concern upon visiting the site in 2018. She was dismayed to find that heavy equipment, asphalt roads, and concrete sidewalks had destroyed parts of the ancient site. Mrs. Schmidt's photos of the destruction sparked worldwide outrage, leading to a statement from the ministry of culture and tourism denying the use of concrete or asphalt. However, evidence of extensive concrete walkways and the removal of wooden walkways for permanent concrete replacements contradicts their claims. The limited excavations currently taking place make it unlikely that the remaining 14 circular enclosures will be fully excavated, leaving potentially valuable information hidden in the ground. The decision-making power and resources of the World Economic Forum, which infiltrated excavation management in 2016, are believed to be hindering a full excavation of the site. …. Listen to it on the YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPNgGnUrCKM

Monday, August 5, 2024

Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood

by Damien F. Mackey A friend has e-mailed the following: “…. A couple of matters related to one of my classes last night: 1) Reason(s) that we hold that the Flood was literally global. 2) I was told many years ago that there had never been rain until the Flood and that people were at first delighted and amazed at what they were seeing. Can you help me with either of these? ….” My response: A ‘literally global’ Noachic Flood is what I used firmly to believe, as well as the notion that rain was formerly unknown to the antediluvians. But I don’t anymore. And I feel sorry and embarrassed, now, for those, such as ‘Creationists’ with their ‘Creation Science’, who hold to 1) in particular, “the Flood was literally global”. Why? Because, as I see it, they are reading the Bible in a modern language, say English, with a modern ‘scientific’ - even to a great extent a pseudo-scientific - mentality, instead of in a way that gives due consideration to the meaning of the language used by the ancient (not modern) scribes with those scribes’ intended meanings. Previously I have quoted Tim Martin on the modern tendency to reduce everything to science – and one could probably add, to numbers and statistics. Tim Martin has actually called ‘Creation Science’ “a right-wing form of modernism”: http://planetpreterist.com/content/beyond-creation-science-how-preterism-refutes-global-flood-and-impacts-genesis-debate-%E2%80%93-par-5 We live in a world dominated by materialism and scientism. The reduction of every aspect of life to “science” has corrupted the soul of Western Civilization. This is one key to understanding the related popularity of both futurism and Creation Science. They are both perfectly compatible with the scientistic spirit of the modern age. In fact, dispensational futurism, at least, is impossible apart from it. Christians aid this scientistic syncretism through Creation Science methods of reading Scripture. They do it by reducing even the language of the Bible to the “scientific.” …. Viewed in this light it is not difficult to see that Creation Science ideology is a right-wing form of modernism. Conrad Hyers puts it this way: Even if evolution is only a scientific theory of interpretation posing as scientific fact, as the [young-earth] creationists argue, [young-earth] creationism is only a religious theory of biblical interpretation posing as biblical fact. To add to the problem, it is a religious theory of biblical interpretation which is heavily influenced by modern scientific, historical, and technological concerns. It is, therefore, essentially modernistic even though claiming to be truly conservative. …. [End of quotes] Catholics (those tending to be of the conservative variety) who have followed Creationism over the years would be well aware that mainstream Catholic scholars have shown virtually no interest whatsoever in its teachings, and that official Catholic documents never seem to support Creation Science. Why might this be so? Surely Creation Science, teaching a belief in God the Creator of all things, and vehemently defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures, ought to be warmly welcomed by the Church as an invaluable ally. On the other hand, the God-fearing are not always right in their estimations, no matter how sincere, and they may need to be corrected. Consider Our Lord’s constant corrections of good people along the lines of: ‘You have heard it said … but I tell you’ (e. g. Matthew 5:21-22). ‘Creationists’ will take biblical phrases such as “the whole earth”, or “all flesh”, and bestow upon these a universal or global status – intending the entire globe. At least they do so when it suits them, such as in the case of the Flood or Babel. For they are not consistent. If they were, would they not have the Queen of the South, who came “from the ends of the earth” (Matthew 12:42), making her way northwards from somewhere in the southern hemisphere? And how do they account for the fact that, at Pentecost, people “from every nation under heaven” are actually listed as being inhabitants of only a very small part of the global world – basically, Rome, Crete, and Egypt, through Syria and Turkey, to Mesopotamia? (Acts 2:5-11): Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God’. The misinterpretation of the ancient texts by modern (say, Western) minds in regard to the Flood is well explained in the following piece by Rich Deem: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalm 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood. The Bible's other creation passages eliminate the possibility of a global flood The concept of a global Genesis flood can be easily eliminated from a plain reading of Psalm 104 … which is known as the "creation psalm." Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) [sic] (verse 2 … parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5,1 parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8,1 parallel to Genesis 1:9-10). The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: "You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalm 104:9)…. Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local. Psalm 104 is just one of several creation passages that indicate that God prevented the seas from covering the entire earth. …. An integration of all flood and creation passages clearly indicates that the Genesis flood was local in geographic extent. The Bible says water covered the whole earth... Really? When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered all of planet earth.3 However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible nearly always refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground." …. We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets. …. [End of quote] ‘Creationists’, having arrived at their completely artificial - and quite laughable, if they weren’t so serious - interpretations of the Bible, will then insist upon one’s adhering to their peculiar ‘biblical’ Weltanschauung as behoving Christians dedicated to the preservation of scriptural inerrancy. Well, I would suggest that no one would have been more surprised than Noah (and his family) to learn that he had once ridden out a global Flood in a sea-going vessel the size of the Queen Mary! As to point 2) ‘there had never been rain until the Flood’, it has no solid biblical support as far as I can tell. And even some ‘Creationists’ now seem to have dropped this idea. For example: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/was-there-no-rain-before-the-flood/ Was There No Rain Before the Flood? Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood; however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out. …. Conclusion While we cannot prove that there was rain before the Flood, to insist that there was not (and even to deride those who think otherwise) stretches Scripture beyond what it actually says. …. My friend’s further comments: Thank you for sending this through. It is very interesting and well written. It reminds me of what I was explaining in class last week, the difference between "literal" and "literalistic" readings of Scripture. Literal is adhering to the text's meaning as literally intended by the author. Literalistic doesn't consider this, but rather merely what the words mean in their most obvious meanings, accounting for no use of idiom or figurative language. Without using this terminology, Damien highlighted this distinction in the case of the flood. I agree with his analysis. However, I don't think he ruled out that the flood might have extended to all the inhabited world? You might want to ask him? He does suggest that this is not necessarily the case with reference to Acts "every nation under the sun". Perhaps then it is inconclusive. That it extended to all the inhabited world would be my favoured interpretation, however, I would like to hear what Damien thinks. This issue is a good case study to indicate that Biblical studies is quite challenging! The historical-critical methods can be helpful at establishing what the original text literally meant, and shouldn't be written off as useless. But, very frequently I think modern scholarship tends to manipulate the scripture in a way that undermines the literal meaning. …. Noah’s world So far I have suggested that those who approach Genesis with a Fundamentalist mentality will take ancient biblical phrases such as “the whole earth”, “all flesh”, and, unhappily, re-present them in global terms. St. Peter writes of “… the world that then was being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Peter 3:6). Now, rather than for one instinctively here to seize upon the phrase, “the world”, and automatically take it to mean global world, one would do better to learn from Genesis what “world”, “earth”, the Book of Genesis had so far presented to us. We find that only a few chapters before the Flood, in Genesis 2. It is a “world” that basically constitutes what would later come to be known as “the Fertile Crescent” – appropriately also known as “the Cradle of Civilisation”. It stretches approximately from Iraq to Egypt (Ethiopia). Thus editor Moses will geographically update the primeval toledôt account of Adam, which would have pre-dated “Ashur” and “Cush” (Genesis 2:10-14): A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The Noachic world is not really very much different in its span from that rendered as “every nation under heaven” in Acts 2:5-11. Presumably, though, the Noachic (the Adamic) world was significantly different, both geologically and topographically, from the post-diluvian world. For instance, it is possible that the antediluvian world was circumscribed by a sea (the earth-encircling river Okeanos of the ancients – Tethys Sea?), thereby preventing Noah from escaping the Flood and the burden of having to build an Ark. In this regard, “… the flood might have extended to all the inhabited world?” That is the view that I personally would favour. It seems to accord with St. Peter’s other statement (I Peter 3:20): “In the Ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water”. Common sense, I think, would tell us that (as according to the Catholic mystic, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich) there must have been significantly more than just eight people aboard the Ark, and that the eight were the progenitors from whom every person on earth - including those others in the Ark - are descended. Practically every nation today, great or small, has its Flood legends that bear greater or lesser similarities to the Genesis Flood account. Noah and his family did not need to take on board every type of animal then in existence, much less the dinosaurs. No wonder scientifically-minded people laugh at this sort of desertion of common sense, that once again takes a “literalistic” approach to a global sounding phrase, “every living thing of all flesh” (Genesis 6:10). Other flood stories throughout the world have the surviving flood-man, whatever he may be called, with only domestic animals on board his boat or raft. Noah simply would have taken pairs of such animals as he and his family would need for food and sacrifice, and to kick-start his new life on terra firma, until conditions began to revert back to normal. The animals depicted at the Göbekli Tepe ‘menagerie’, close to where Noah’s Ark actually landed at Karaca Dag: Noah’s Ark Mountain (4) Noah's Ark Mountain | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu might be a clue to the sort of animals that were to be found on board the Ark.