Sunday, 9 March 2014

With Ward, on Flood, Rabbis, Joshua's Long Day

HGL to Murray R. Adamthwaite & Rowland S. Ward
07/03/14 à 13h23
To Murray R. Adamthwaite & Rowland S. Ward
Sirs, I guess you know which article on CMI features text from both of you.

CMI : Church leader ‘aghast’ at belief in a worldwide Flood?
Published: 15 July 2002 (GMT+10)

I had occasion to cite you - in French - in this article:

New blog on the kid : Hier à St Eustache, on louait Hitler

You are able to read French? If not ask for the points that intrigue you.

The main gist is against Talmud.

The one of you affirming "Talmudic sages" - obviously some and not all of the rabbis - had been defending the idea of a local Flood afforded me an occasion to cite something against the Talmud from a source not as Antisemitic - as they say - as Pranaitis. The other of you saying it was not a question of a local Flood but of a Global Flood with local exception (clearly not same thing except to the mathematic branch of topology) made me modify this in my third PS (to which I referred under the quote from Ward). In that case, perhaps Ward might do well to take care with listening to what his Jewish Rabbi friends tell him, though it would theoretically have been possible that the dishonesty was on his/your side as well, but I prefer suspecting the Rabbis for a pilpul.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rowland S. Ward to HGL (cc to Murray R. Adamthwaite)
07/03/14 à 21h11
Re: To Murray R. Adamthwaite & Rowland S. Ward
I should probably not waste my time responding but here goes.

My reference to the Talmud is incidental to the argument (self-evident from my letter) but at least it shows that at an early date the universal view was not universal. Indeed the Talmud may be nationalistic, but it's hard to envisage of global flood of the kind envisaged by Dr Adamthwaite if there are geographical exception. Of course Talmudic exegesis is fanciful, so much so I actually checked with a local rabbi that I was reading it correctly. Thank you for your hint that Dr Adamthwaite and/or myself may have been dishonest. And that's the problem with much of this debate. It's so ad hominem.

On Joshua's long day you may find this of interest:

Rowland S Ward : Themes in the Book of Joshua

Rowland Ward


Rev Dr Rowland S. Ward
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
Postal: 26 Roxburgh Road, Wantirna 3152
Tel: +613 9720 4871


(for ebook God and Adam)

HGL to Rowland S. Ward only
08/03/14 à 19h55
Re: To Murray R. Adamthwaite & Rowland S. Ward
I do not think it is dishonest to mention the possibility of a Heretic being dishonest. And considering the kind of intellectual dishonesty I have met from Modernist Heretics, well ...

I did not settle for either him or you being the dishonest party, I said that IF he was right, either you or the rabbi you checked with (I suppose you cannot read the Talmud yourself) was dishonest.

A local exception to a world wide flood might certainly have been envisageable per se. Look at level of Red Sea and what God did to it during Exodus!

It is even Patristically speaking possible the Earthly Paradise just might have been so spared. But no men were living in it. Adam and Eve had been expulsed from it. Unlike the rabbis I do not consider that all of Holy Land was within Paradise of Eden. Haydock comment says it was "in the East" and clarifies "either of Holy Land/Palestine or from the Land Moses was writing in".

Jerusalem, at least for Calvary, is outside Paradise. Calvary is where Adam was buried.

However, it is also where Adam had been created before being brough to Paradise. That, rather than being part of Earthly Paradise is the special relation of the Holy Land to creation and recreation of Man.

"This followed on Joshua’s cry to the LORD at midday (10:13) for the sun and moon to ‘stop’ (in context does this mean ‘to cease to shine’?).

It looks as though God answered Joshua by sending peculiar weather which included the severe hail and perhaps reflected the light of the sun and moon in a strange way, so that it gave respite from the heat to Joshua’s weary soldiers, yet light for them to continue their pursuit, while the Amorite army were struck by the storm which reduced it to a remnant easily finished off. Whatever the precise explanation it is clear that the LORD fights for his people."

It does NOT mean cease to shine. If it did, then also the Solar Miracle of Joshua would have been repeated on Calvary.

But there is evidence, both from Egypt and Homer and from the other repetition of the Miracle, with Hezechias, that it meant a cessation of Sun's daily rotation around Earth.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Second Solar Miracle of OT, confirmed by Egyptians

Hans-Georg Lundahl

HGL to Rowland S. Ward only
08/03/14 à 21h27
Homeric confirmation for Joshua's miracle
In the Iliad, did not look the place up but trusted the learned scholar who was writing about Homer and whom I quote:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Where did Agamemnon Come Up with That?

Plus one other link:

[deretour : Pope? Poverello? Prophet? Messiah? - Who claims that's my claim, I claim he's a liar!]
url shortened as:

HGL to Rowland S. Ward only
09/03/14 à 12h13
Three more things
1) I sent the first mail to Adamthwaite as well, but got a 550 reply - mail not received.

Would you please graciously forward?

2) This correspondence is in my thinking not of a private character. It comes onto this blog:

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl

Please to forward that too!

3) Contextual absurdity of exegesis on Joshua.

I suppose the word for "stand still" in Hebrew could be the same as the one for "hold" or even in some contexts "be silent, shut up".

This does not mean it could imply the Sun stopped shining in Joshua any more than semantic range of iôm implies that long eras could have evenings and mornings.

Why? Because it is not just the Sun, but also the Moon that is ordered to "stand still". If it referred to light rather than to movement, then the Israelites would have had no light when pursuing the Amorrhites.

It stands to reason, that Joshua wanted the light to remain rather than the heat to abate, since otherwise he would have had no reason to say anything to the Moon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

PS, He wrote an article reviewing Jonathan Sarfati's Refuting Compromise

Indeed, even your reviewer rates a guernsey (p.77) because, says Sarfarti, though (unlike Ross) I get the Hebrew pattern of Genesis 1 right, I have “a long history of vexatious opposition to the view that Genesis is straightforward history.” Vexatious means either frivolous or malicious. Whatever you pick, it’s not very nice (nor accurate!).

This is a book for the true believer. Although he may not understand all the arguments, he will be reassured that any other view is a matter of compromise. The unfortunate tendency will be that faithful ministries that do not toe the line will be viewed with suspicion. A furtherance of the confrontational and separatist outlook we are accustomed to associate with the fringes of the American Bible-belt seems inevitable in the nearer term.

Vexatious means neither frivolous nor malicious per se. It means vexing. Someone frivolous can be vexing. Someone malicious can be vexing. Someone getting things wrong very systematically can be vexing too. Even if he is neither malicious nor frivolous.

However, considering how easily Rowland S. Ward gets sth wrong and takes criticism of his views as a personal matter, I would not guarantee he is not a frivolous mind.

He seems to take "ad hominem" as a synonym of whatever is insulting to the person attacked and whose views are attacked. But in fact ad hominem means shifting the issue from the matter discussed to the man one is discussing it with, which I was not doing./HGL

PPS, the last paragraph in his review is a very clear ad hominem against anyone agreeing with Jonathan Sarfati./HGL

Came some more correspondence, actually:

Rowland Ward to HGL
09/03/14 à 23h02
Re: Three more things
I do not have Dr Adamthwaite's email (a google search might locate it), nor do I think it appropriate that emails should be posted on blogs without clearing it first, particularly where you imply heresy. Please remove your second one at least.

Rowland S. Ward

[Signature as above]
HGL to Rowland Ward
10/03/14 à 17h57
Re: Three more things
MY second one?

Sorry, but if you want yours removed, that could be considered your right, but asking me to remove mine from my blog is trespassing on MY intellectual property.

It is hardly great news that Roman Catholics and Calvinists have been considering each other heretics since the day when both religions existed. It is hardly news that there are Roman Catholics who are not into the Ecumenical swing either. Neither with Jewish rabbis nor with Calvinist pastors.

So, whoever you feel bad about reading this, you can tell them "that is a Roman Catholic". But you can NOT tell the Roman Catholic (or anyone else who is a man, for that matter) he cannot publish on his own blog his own mail to you.

I was tempted to describe you in terms that might even more feed your ill-ease at this exchange. I refrain.

But these are two more mails that go on my blog.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

List of my blogs