My Reason Why I Think the Fix Stars are One Light Day Up

And I Also Do Not Believe We Live in a Simulation · My Reason Why I Think the Fix Stars are One Light Day Up

Here is CMI, with no good solution on why "distant" starlight can be seen:

Distant starlight and the days of Genesis 1
First published: 13 April 2013 (GMT+10)
Re-featured on homepage: 16 July 2022 (GMT+10)*
https://creation.com/distant-starlight-genesis-days

Here are a comment and the answer by Shaun Doyle:

Marius H. AU

15/04/2013

Have you thought that the stars etc. were created in the same way as God created the trees and plants for Adam and Eve to eat? They did not have to wait several years for the trees to grow and bear fruit before they could eat! The same creation "Rule" exists for the creation of the stars etc. They shone in all their glory for their Creator from the moment they were created.
How wonderful is our GOD..

Shaun Doyle

15/04/2013

There is no question that the stars glorified God from the moment they were created, and that they were visible to Adam and Eve on their first night. But that doesn't tell us how distant starlight got to Earth for Adam and Eve to see in so short a time. We can't simply assume that how mature trees formed with ripe fruit ready to eat is in any way related to how distant starlight travelled so far in such a short timeframe. Presumably the trees would not have had to go through the normal developmental process, but the starlight still had to proceed from the actual stars and reach Earth somehow. Otherwise we have a lightshow that bears no relation to the actual objects they purport to reveal; it makes God look very much like a deceiver.

Solution : the stars were not (and presumably still are not) all that distant. With Geocentrism, it is perfectly feasible** that any stars are no further away than one light day up.

Why one, when Adam and Eve where created on day 6 which is two days after day 4? Some birds make their orientation by stars, and these were created on day 5, one day after the stars themselves.

I think they do so much better on other subjects, CMI!/HGL

* In case you didn't get "GMT+10" it means this is published in Australia or New Zealand, whichever of them is ten hours ahead of the hour in Greenwich. ** See previous And I Also Do Not Believe We Live in a Simulation

Why Bloggers Are Not Backbiters

I do not know the exact situation of SSPX in Tulsa.

I do think Laramie Hirsch knows it well enough to write about it.

Now, when he had done so on his blog, a certain Jason Ferguson seems to have considered him guilty or reasonably suspect of backbiting.

I'll link to the post (though I know not the situation in Tulsa), and then copy three comments from under the post, namely by Ferguson, Hirsch, and myself.

In Ferguson's comment, he did not make the link clickable, I will vary his actual text so it is. My own words start with a quote from the link, in quotation marks and italics.

Blog post concerned

The Hirsch Files : Where's Tulsa's "Fr. Stan Rother"? SSPX Packs Up And Leaves.
https://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2017/09/wheres-tulsas-fr-stan-rother-sspx-packs.html

Jason Ferguson

September 25, 2017 at 12:08 PM

After reading through your blog, I think you need a remedial lesson in the sins of the tongue.

Since anything written after 1960 would probably be suspect to you, probably try this little gem writen in 1870.

You are getting drawn into the Scylla that has drowned many a traditionalist Catholic while trying to avoid the Charybdis of modernism.

SINS OF THE TONGUE: The Backbiting Tongue
By Father Belet, of the Diocese of Basle
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/btongue.htm

Laramie Hirsch

September 25, 2017 at 12:46 PM

Thank you for your constructive criticism.

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 27, 2017 at 2:54 AM

"This is truly the nature of backbiters. They cannot do physical harm to those who are absent, so they strike at them with their tongue."

Jason Ferguson, if Laramie Hirsch has given SSPX opportunity to respond and is willing to post any response given (with or without critical comments), he is not guilty of backbiting.

In oral speech, words carry only to a few yards.

Even at 20 yards, two men may be talking about a third who hears the word "malade" ("ill") and doesn't know exactly whom they are talking about, him or someone else, even if him is probable.

But writing on the internet (or otherwise in public) is of the nature to carry a lot further, and therefore, one need not be in the same room to have spoken in someone's presence : he can be told, by oneself or by someone else, and therefore react, precisely as if oral words are spoken to someone at arms' length with eye contact.

Sure, the person cannot slap or hit you on the spot, if he thinks you need it, he cannot shout and interrupt you, he cannot make a scene and phone police and psychiatry about your queer behaviour in it, but this kind of threat should not be the normal rationale for keeping quiet about someone's faults in his physical presence.

Therefore, the only way a blogger can be accused of backbiting is, if he is reasonably suspect of not daring to send his posts to the person concerned, and of being sufficiently stupid to believe no one else will do so.

Or if he posts anonymously, hoping no one will know he is the blogger.

Which I think Laramie Hirsch is NOT reasonably suspect of. Any of these scenaria.

So far our words under that blog post.

Now, if for instance someone at St Nicolas de Chardonnet has told his parishioners my blogs commit the sin of backbiting, and they would commit the sin of listening to a backbiter by reading my blogs, that is if so a real case of backbiting. Blogging is not backbiting, and calling a blogger a backbiter behind his back is to backbite him.

I also, when naming a person, try to contact him, I also write under my own name, I sign each longer article, even short articles have at their end the signature HGL, the only time I don't sign is when I am linking, or when I am posting a dialogue, or on a blog where I tend to post dialogues and perhaps also when the comment on a video is implying a dialogue with it, since there I would not be signing the words of the other party. In other words, I am not the extremely cowardly type of blogger who could be, exceptionally, a backbiter. I am the normal kind of blogger, who is not a backbiter.

Attacking an institution is a somewhat different affair, since no person is named whom I am putting blame on, and therefore I have no specific person to contact. Any reader who knows a person implied in such an institution who should be interested is however very welcome to bring my posts to his attention.

Also, some named persons are actually hard to get at : do not have email on their site, or reserve it for members on their forum, you need to sign up on their forum, and also have no FB page. In such a case I do the best I can to contact them.

I also make my blogs widely known, it is not as if I was speaking in a secret corner. I may be writing in a calm corner, but I am not writing for a secret corner. It is not for nothing I have sometimes posted posts with the statistics of my visitors. They are there as a reminder I am actually being read - and I know it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Cosmas and Damian
27.IX.2017

I Just Learned Nelson Rockefeller Died 1979

Why is this important?

Well, he was the guy who was responsible for Twin Towers, as Governor of New York State to very late in 1973. I had thought, on top of this, he had died in 2000, one year before 9-11. I had also said so, back when debating on Rockefeller in connection with trutherism in the Chomsky group.

No one there seems to have minded my being wrong by so much, it is only today that someone else (far more connected to truthers than to Chomsky) is telling me Nelson Rockefeller died in 1979. I checked, it seems to have been so, and I thanked him.

But back when I was on the Chomsky group, for some reason no one seems to have bothered contradicting me on the death date of Nelson Rockefeller.

Btw, I was on the Chomsky group because I am a linguist. I think Chomsky has been proven wrong on Creoles, they are not innate grammar, they are, as to Atlantic ones, a West African one. Portuguese with West African grammar, Dutch, English and French with a West African grammar. Then, I am interested in how he would apply tree diagrams to Latin too.

Anyway, I got no tree diagrams on Latin, I got no discussion of The Missing Spanish Creoles, by John McWhorter, AND, when discussing truthers, I was not corrected on the death date of Nelson Rockefeller.

Here is a link to this part of the discussion:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Debating Mainly on Trutherism, part II, in which I point finger at John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller (not forgetting Percy Sutton)
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2015/04/debating-mainly-on-trutherism-part-ii.html

It involves, from today, a correction on this matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris X
St Matthew Apostle*
21.IX.2017

* In Aethiopia natalis sancti Matthaei, Apostoli et Evangelistae; qui, in ea regione praedicans, martyrium passus est. Hujus Evangelium, Hebraeo sermone conscriptum, ipso Matthaeo revelante, inventum est, una cum corpore beati Barnabae Apostoli, tempore Zenonis Imperatoris.

PS, checked, it seems I would have simply confused his lifetime with that of his eldest son Rodman Clark Rockefeller, died May 2000, one brother presumed dead since earlier and two brothers still alive. And if I didn't react, well, a governor of New York state in 1973 who makes that blunder could as well be 41 years old as the really 65 years he actually had. From January 1:st 1971 to December 31:st 1973 (a few days after Nelson left office), if wikipedian list is trustworthy, 4204 people had died in 47 plane crashes, and Aeroflot was only responsible for 16 of them, unless I missed a ? in the counting together of these. Here is the table:

65	0000 060 05	1971-03-31
78	0000 130 13	1971-05-23
50	0000 180 13	1971-06-06
68	0000 240 21	1971-07-03
97	0000 330 28	1971-07-25 V
162	0100 390 30	1971-07-30
111	0200 400 31	1971-09-04
63	0200 460 34	1971-10-02
50	0200 510 34	1971-11-09 X
69	0200 570 43	1971-11-10
52	0200 620 45	1971-11-12
57	0200 670 52	1971-12-01
91	0200 760 53	1971-12-24
reset	0900 110 03
reset	1000 010 03
104	1100 010 07	1972-01-07 XV
112	1200 020 09	1972-03-14
115	1300 030 14	1972-05-05
122	1400 050 16	1972-05-18
86	1400 130 22	1972-06-14
81	1400 210 23	1972-06-15 XX
118	1500 220 31	1972-06-18
156	1600 270 37	1972-08-14
101	1700 270 38	1972-08-31
109	1800 270 47	1972-10-01
reset	2000 070 47
reset	2000 110 07
reset	2100 010 07
174	2200 080 11	1972-10-13 XXV
60	2200 140 11	1972-10-27
61	2200 200 12	1972-11-28
155	2300 250 17	1972-12-03
101	2400 250 18	1972-12-29
176	2500 320 24	1973-01-22 XXX
66	2500 380 30	1973-02-19
108	2600 380 38	1973-02-21
79	2600 450 47	1973-02-24
reset	3000 090 07
68	3000 150 15	1973-03-05
58	3000 200 23	1973-03-19 XXXV
108	3100 200 41	1973-04-10
63	3100 260 44	1973-05-11
82	3100 340 46	1973-05-19
123	3200 360 49	1973-07-11
reset	3500 060 49
reset	3600 000 09
78	3600 070 17	1973-07-22 XL
88	3600 150 25	1973-07-31
86	3600 230 31	1973-08-13
56	3600 280 37	1973-08-18
108	3700 280 45	1973-09-30
122	3800 300 47	1973-10-13 XLV
51	3800 350 48	1973-12-16 XLVI
106	3800 350 54	1973-12-22 XLVII
sum	3800 404
sum	4204

And here is the wikipedian table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents_resulting_in_at_least_50_fatalities

Note that all air crashes involving fatalities fewer than 50, so 1 to 49, are left out here. So, what made Nelson Rockefeller so sure no plane would crash into Twin Towers? Good ethics in pilots? Hijacking had been going on since 1930's. Including a 40 day long Palestinian one, in 1968. Suicide attacks was no novelty either. Suicide attacks by plane had been done by the Japanese, during the war./HGL

A false witness shall not go unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape ...

There is a good song on that theme, with the meter:

/ : A fálse wítness · shall nót gò unpúnisht

and hé that spèaketh líes shall nòt escápe :/

Gód is kèeping tráck of èv'ry líe.

Thére is nò escápe, · Próverbs nìneteen fíve,

Í will tèll the trúth · for Gòd will púnish èv'ry líe

Próvèrbs nínetèen fíve.

/ : A fálse wítness · shall nót gò unpúnisht

and hé that spèaketh líes shall nòt escápe :/

Próvèrbs nínetèen fíve.

Tolkien would have loved the meter ... "odd" lines are pure Beowulf meter, where Biblical, more like later Middle English allitterative verse when added, in both cases minus the usual allitteration, "even" (indented) lines relate to odd ones in a way reminding of 3 and 6th lines of Ljodaháttr (note, an odd line here would in Ljodaháttr be noted like two lines, like 1, 2 or 4, 5, which I here separate by a middot).

And I am happy my mother taught me not to lie, and I have not lied often in my life, and the lies have already been punished very immediately.

Like the time I pretended to a Dane to be Norwegian, because Swedes were unpopular (due to Swedish neutrality vs Danish resistance, WW-II). Not a complete lie, but mainly a lie, since I am only quarter Norwegian and never grew up in Norway. And since I am mainly a Swede and didn't say that. It was punished very quickly when he quizzed me on Norwegian matters and I was "eh, well, you know I am not into sports ..." and I finished by admitting the truth.

I did not escape.

So, I can escape worse things, for the future, by not lying again.

Now, I have this from a video which polemises against English Standard Bible.

KJB Myth Busting the ESV
Dave Flang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ_ET23LqpY

While I prefer Douay Rheims (which here completely agrees with KJV, as in Proverbs 19 5, since I checked (I would not promote a KJV reference uncorrected, if disagreeing with Douay Rheims) and even KJV over ESV, on this account the judgement may have been hasty.

After the Cross agony, Jesus did take our sins below the seas (see Micah 7:19), to the netherworld and threw them back into the face of Satan.

So, perhaps the Azazel reading does not destroy but underline the typology of Christ. I think Rob Skiba would say so.

And while the song was not appropriate for liturgy, like when worshipping God in Holy Mass, it is a very good song for polemics, for reminding liars of their plight, and for extra-liturgic fun.

However, LXX here agrees with KJV and with Douay Rheims and with Vulgate:

Leviticus 16:10 and the goat upon which the lot of the scape-goat came, he shall present alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon him, so as to send him away as a scape-goat, and he shall send him into the wilderness.

As I am no Hebraist, I cannot check Masoretic version, but I think the word "azazel" may in fact be in the text.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Parmentier
Ember Sabbath of Lent
11.III.2017