Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 102467 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #150 on:** February 10, 2014, 02:06:18 PM »

.

Who is the author of this paragraph in brackets?

Quote from: cantatedomino

Post

[NOTE: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay (change) observable in nature. For example, the 2nd law is responsible for changing a new building – without maintenance - into ruins over time, and for a machine rusting into dust.]

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #151 on:** February 10, 2014, 02:13:22 PM »

.

Who is the author of text in blue font?

Who is the author of text in brackets?

Who is the author of blue font text in brackets?

.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #152 on:** February 10, 2014, 02:34:30 PM »

delete

cantatedomino · « **Reply #153 on:** February 10, 2014, 02:35:44 PM »

I am the blue font bracket author/perpetrator.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #154 on:** February 10, 2014, 02:36:54 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Who is the author of this paragraph in brackets?

Quote from: cantatedomino

Post

[NOTE: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay (change) observable in nature. For example, the 2nd law is responsible for changing a new building – without maintenance - into ruins over time, and for a machine rusting into dust.]

.

This was in black, so it is the author's footnote.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #155 on:** February 10, 2014, 03:19:42 PM »

.

Some readers may be unaware that the following quote (it seems to be a quote, anyway, since it's in italics, even though cantatedomino has not bothered to mention whether portions of posts in italics are going to be, or are, or have been quotes from the source following in parentheses or brackets or non-italic font, or whatever) is from a Catholic priest, who wrote the book, All About Angels, as noted parenthetically:

Quote from: [url=http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&f=19&min=145#p0

E.D.M.[/url]]
It is true that all the stars and heavenly bodies by the natural direction given them by God pursue their several courses but these great worlds are material and, therefore, as the Angelic Doctor points out, are liable to decay and deterioration. To prevent therefore, disorder and confusion in the thousands of heavenly bodies which are whirling through space with inexpressible speed, God gives each one, in His all-wise Providence, an Angel to keep it in its course and avert the dire calamities that would result were it to stray from its allotted orbit . . . Few people think on all this when on beautiful star-lit nights they gaze on the Heavens and the myriads of stars. How fitting it would be to salute the countless Angels who guard these stars: “Oh glorious Angels of the stars, we love you, we thank you. Please bless us and shower on us your protection.
(E.D.M.: All About Angels, Catholic Printing Press, Portugal, 1945, pp.31-32.)

Father Paul O'Sullivan went by the initials "E.D.M." and he was the author of the book, which see.

Furthermore, not to pay any attention to inane drivel by one mentally challenged member currently on the loose, notice that E.D.M. does not refer to Scripture in this paragraph, and rightly so, because there is nothing in Scripture that addresses this topic, objectively. However, this is rather an insight into what makes Scripture what it is, because this is in perfect HARMONY with Scripture even though this is not literally found in Scripture. The reference is instead to the works of the Angelic Doctor, to whom protestants and other non-Catholics are wont to look at askance, for fear of not knowing whether it is to be believed or not (curiously, all the while they argue against the infallibility of the pope, while they rely on the infallibility of the Bible, which is, after all, only known to be infallible BECAUSE its infallibility was defined by the pope). They like to quote St. Thomas, but do so with great reserve, for the things they would LIKE to say they can't say, because it cannot be referenced literally in the Bible. Of course, our resident heckler won't understand this and will no doubt continue his inanities apace. Furthermore, as I recall, E.D.M. touches on this aspect of the Angelic Doctor's discourse, but it's not mentioned so far in THE EARTHMOVERS: -- for whatever reason. Perhaps the mysterious and/or unknown author of this non-book (thanks to the deficiencies of its production here on CI, apparently) is not aware of it, or if he IS aware of it, then he does not comprehend the implications of it, or if he DOES comprehend the implications of it, he has chosen not to mention it because of something -- perhaps that readers like r___ for example, might think he's being a practical protestant (which sounds a little bit like "practical sedevacantist," don't-cha-know, like the Menzingen-ddenizens are wont to say). But the missing teaching is as follows: Each angel is as different from every other angel not in the same way that people are different from one another. We are prone to think of angels like male or female, or cousin or neighbor, or Asian or Arian, or Black or White, or rich or poor, or adult or child, or classical or modern, but angels are much more different from each other than that. Angels, say the Angelic Doctor, are as different from each other as are the various species different from one another. That is to say, that Angel A is as different from Angel B as is a whale is different from a toad, or a giraffe is from a flea, or a soaring eagle is from a crawling snake, or a trilobite is from a desert tortoise, or a queen bee is from a male mountain lion, or a Mississippi hummingbird is from an Arabian horse. IN FACT, we could think of it this way: Since animals are part of THIS WORLD, and are not part of the NEXT WORLD (I'm sorry, animal lovers, but you are simply WRONG, there are none of your favorite pets or endangered species to be found in heaven!) we could think of the animals we know and love as simply God's way of preparing us for our eternity -- in one way or the other. EITHER we will glorify God in eternity enjoying the multiplicity of angels all around us as different from each other as are all the animal species in our temporal world, OR, we will grudgingly glorify God in hell, tortured forever by the multiplicity of demonic fallen angels, each of whom is as different from each other as are the various species in our temporal world. But all will glorify God, in any case. Every knee shall bend, whether on the earth or under the earth.

When we think of angels in this way, we then can apply this principle to the concept of angels guarding and guiding the motions of planets, or the sun, or the stars. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that ONE angel may be capable of guiding TWO stars, or TWENTY or a THOUSAND. Why not? If angels are as different as a Tyrannosaurus Rex is from a virus microbe, then why would some particular angels be incapable of taking care of more than just one star in the sky?

In this way, we can expand our craniums to a little better appreciation for the providence of God, and how eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those that love Him.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #156 on:** February 10, 2014, 04:05:51 PM »

.

Thank you for your reply, cantatedomino! Please be aware that I am not trying to "upset" you (if you are a woman, you will very likely be prone to getting upset like this), but I am merely attempting to UNDERSTAND the posts I am reading. As I read these installments, I have been bewildered from time to time as to who it is that wrote the words I am reading. It makes a HUGE difference for comprehension whether person A or person B wrote the words.

BTW in the Bible it is sometimes difficult to understand what is written for this very reason. Some books of Scripture are authored perhaps by two or more people, and this is a vulnerability, because Modernists have taken that weakness to imply that therefore ALL of Scripture is not to be believed because it was ALL written by committees of ne'er-do-wells who had NOTHING BUT TROUBLE in mind when they got together to write stuff, etc. NOTE: I am not saying this is the case with your posts, here - DON'T GET ME WRONG.

I really appreciate this thread and I hope to get a lot out of it, that is, a lot MORE than I already have! Tell the author that I hope some day he will make himself known to the world so we can stand in line to get our copies autographed and stuff. You know, like a book signing. HAHAHAHA

Quote from: I

.

Who is the author of text in blue font?

Who is the author of text in brackets?

Who is the author of blue font text in brackets?

.

Quote from: cantatedomino

I am the blue font bracket author/perpetrator.

Am I wrong to presume this was an attempt to answer 3 questions with one sentence? If not, am I wrong to expect the answer to the first question, "Who is the author of text in blue font?" to be: "I am the blue font author." (?)

And am I wrong to presume the answer to the second question, "Who is the author of text in brackets?" is that, "If I feel like it at the moment, which might change without notice at any time, perhaps I would be the author/perpetrator of the text in brackets." (?)

And, the answer to the third question, "Who is the author of blue font text in brackets?" is simply too much, question overload, and "I'm, sorry, I only have PATIENCE to answer in one sentence and I can't DEAL with so many questions in one sentence!!!" (?)

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

Who is the author of this paragraph in brackets?

Quote from: cantatedomino

Post

[NOTE: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay (change) observable in nature. For example, the 2nd law is responsible for changing a new building – without maintenance - into ruins over time, and for a machine rusting into dust.]

.

This was in black, so it is the author's footnote.

This, then would corroborate my expectations for the second question, above, "Who is the author of text in brackets?" (since my second question was not specifically answered previously). For now, when one's fancy strikes the moment, suddenly brackets no longer constitute words written by the posting member but are instead indicate the texts is actually a footnote of the original author.

Okay.

Notice, no answer forthcoming in regards to both blue font AND brackets. Correct?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #157 on:** February 10, 2014, 04:56:00 PM »

.

The ink dried, again.

There is an omission in my post, whereby I presume that your answer, "I am the blue font bracket author/perpetrator," only addresses the first two of my questions but not the third question.

The omission is as follows:

Perhaps what you meant to communicate, cantatedomino, is that you were not answering the second question at all with that reply, but only the first and the third questions, as follows:

Quote

Who is the author of text in blue font?

~~Who is the author of text in brackets?~~

Who is the author of blue font text in brackets?

I had considered this, but discarded it immediately, because, IF you had intended to answer from the start of this reply that ALL bracketed text would construe words of the original author as found in a footnote, THEN there would be no reason for such words to ever appear as part of your commentary or clarification or contribution or whatever-it-is you're doing with the bold blue font.

At the risk of being obvious, I'll go ahead and be obvious:

This is to say, that IF you were only answering questions 1 and 3 in your first post and had planned to address question 2 in your second post alone, THEN your answers would make no sense in regards to the third question, BECAUSE having both brackets AND bold blue font together would be as if to say, "I wrote this in bold blue font BUT the original author wrote it TOO, since this part is in brackets meaning it is a footnote in the original text; BUT since it's also in bold blue font, I must have written it, but now I'm confused and I don't know what I mean anymore, :cry: and can't you just ENJOY what's posted like Mable or whoever said 53 posts back?" Etc., &c.

The point is, I would REALLY appreciate CONSISTENCY.

Like in any publication, ever, that is, any CREDIBLE publication, editorial standards demand that a particular book is CONSISTENT in the way it depicts things. If bold blue font is going to be editor comments / notes / contributions, then fine, JUST SAY SO from the very beginning (INSTEAD of waiting until post number 153, after having been asked 4 times, already).

If original author footnotes are to be in black -- not in italics, not in bold, but YES, in brackets -- then fine. Just say so!

Why is some quoted text in italics and other quoted text is not in italics? Is all italics your own decision, or is it in the original? Usually, credible editors note, "Emphasis added," when they insert italics and/or bold and/or underline and/or ALL CAPS into a quoted segment. I have yet to see those words (Emphasis added) in a single 'THE EARTHMOVERS:' post, yet.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #158 on:** February 10, 2014, 05:27:31 PM »

.

There are a LOT of things I would like to mention about the actual content of this material, but these editorial inconsistencies are actually MORE IMPORTANT because they keep happening here and this will affect the entire rest of the posts, however more there are.

Are you halfway done, or is this still chapter 1 of a 15 chapter 'book'?

I really appreciate this whole effort, cantatedomino, and I do enjoy now all these posts in the larger font which you made after my repeated requests.

I don't want to ask too much, but it appears you are adding things such as formatting and comments, so if you could just be CONSISTENT with how that is handled, it would be a big help.

In case you might be familiar with the Living Rosary Association of St. Philomena, there is a newsletter / booklet that a nice lady prints out and mails to members, and it absolutely drives me up the wall how she changes font size, style, italics, bold, and stuff almost every page or two. It's like she can't make up her mind. It reminds me of certain women's magazines that I can't even recall because I've successfully put them out of my mind, all the font styles and emphasis thrown around like it's fun to throw it around or whatever.

I know priests who cannot read the works of Fr. Paul Trinchard because he uses too much italics and bold font text and large type and ALL CAPS. They say, "It seems like when I read something important, someone is SHOUTING at me."

Perhaps bowler needs to think about this. HAHAHAHAHAHA

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #159 on:** February 10, 2014, 06:03:48 PM »

.

To exemplify my concern and question, below find a post that contains a bracketed portion (which would seem to be a footnote from the original author, since it's in brackets) in bold blue font.

So, is the author of this bold blue font text in bold blue font brackets, the original author? Is rather the author cantatedomino, instead? Or is it some other person?

It's in post number 108*:

Quote from: cantatedomino

THE EARTHMOVERS: Because scientific research is practically endless in extent it cannot be exhausted. Indeed, the history of investigation merely demonstrates that the more we know the more we know how little we know. Legitimate freedom is consequently needed for scientific progress as well as for any human development. There are however, limitations within the sphere of legitimate freedom in science, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1903 states. All things in this world may be considered from a triple point of view: from the logical, the physical, and the ethical. Applied to science we discover limitations in all three.

(A) Logically science is limited by truth, which belongs to its very essence. Knowledge of things cannot be known from their causes unless the knowledge is true. False knowledge cannot be derived from the causes of things; it has its origin in some spurious source such as a false philosophy or ideology. Should science ever have to choose between truth and freedom it must under all circuмstances decide for truth under penalty of sham or self-annihilation.

Every scientist must accept certain truths dictated by sound reason. Whatever science is chosen it must be built upon natural or philosophical presuppositions on which the life of man rests. As we record the story of the Earthmovers, we find philosophers and scientists from the sixteenth century onwards calling for unlimited freedom in natural philosophy, ‘science without presuppositions.’ Such a proposition is absurd. Every scientist should accept certain truths dictated by sound reason. The fact is that all positive science borrows from philosophy a number of essential principles, presuppositions or axioms.

(B) The physical limitations of science are found in its technical and material means. Advances in technology often determine the pace at which a science progresses, - astronomy for example, as telescopes were improved and magnified. The sciences also need places for research, teaching and learning, such as observatories, laboratories and universities. However, depending on the ethos of these institutions and establishments from theist to atheist, from Christian to anti-Christian, philosophical limitations will be applied even here.

C) The ethical limitations of science come from within two spiritual faculties - understanding and will. It must be said here that ethics is more important for mankind than science. History reveals this fact for all to see, whether Christian or rationalist. The happiness of peoples rests in moral rectitude not in scientific progress. [The truth of this is seen all around us in our medication-crazed, techno-addicted world. Moral evil causes deep psychological and spiritual trauma. The world of this darkness offers no relief from all-pervasive moral evil in family homes and community workplaces. Thus the people, en masse, are psychologically and spiritually sick, even unto death.]

We should conclude from this that if ever there should be a conflict between science and ethics the latter should prevail.

*How did I know it was post #108? What chapter was it in? What is the page number? Is it in the Introduction? Or the Preface? How do you know?

.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #160 on:** February 15, 2014, 05:21:58 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Were it possible to determine every cause of motion in the universe and extrapolate backwards, we would have to arrive at a first thing or things moved directly by God. Alas, we do not know what is moved by His will alone or as a result of secondary causes that flow from the First Cause. It could be God keeps the universe alive and moving using His will alone, consigning an angel to direct every body in it according to His will. If we try to reason out this primary movement by God that prevails in a geocentric universe, one possibility is that it is the firmament or space itself that God rotates. This first movement causes within it effects that act upon the matter contained within the bubble of revolving space, just as a gyroscope radiates dynamic angular momentum and direction such as is found in electromagnetism. Such a proposal, we know, cannot be proven or falsified scientifically, but is as theologically and philosophically credible as any presented by modern science.

[NOTE: The tilting of the planetary planes about the sun-earth plane of the ecliptic is something that you would expect a gyroscope to do, especially when the star canopy is whirling at a mind boggling one revolution per 24 hours.]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #161 on:** February 15, 2014, 05:26:19 AM »

APPENDIX ON TIME

Time is defined, after Aristotle, as ‘the numbering of motion according to the before and after.’ Time then is the duration of motion or change in which all things happen. This must also apply to matter. All matter is in a process in its existence (the law of entropy-decay, otherwise known as the Second law of Thermodynamics). Everything is undergoing energy breakdown, from the stars to the earth and all things on it.

Now a process in motion is something changing, and change needs time to run its course. The very existence of ‘time’ shows there was a beginning, and not so long ago, because, as the law of burn-out dictates, if everything was here forever, all would be burned down to zero energy matter by now, which is not the case.

Measuring time is, of course, not time itself. We measure time according to God’s plan, the ordained movement of the cosmos, but specifically the daily and yearly cycle of the sun, stars and seasons. Thus the first object of astronomy was measuring time, begun, as Domenico Cassini recorded, by the first people to inhabit the earth. Every measurement - from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall - is but a division of the cosmic day and the cosmic year.

Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of time is that it has to be universal, that is, all time must be the same for everyone, in heaven and on earth. When we relate to the past, present and future, it should go without saying, we must all have the same understanding of it. Fortunately, for most of us, apart from the space-time relativists, that is, who think the cosmos is made up of different time-zones, this is how it is, has always been, and always will be.

Dogmas held by the Catholic Church must surely need true time and space forming an absolute framework within which the material and spiritual events of heaven and earth run their course in imperturbable order. Such at least is demanded by the Christian intellect and is reflected in the Scriptures and in scholastic philosophy and theology.

The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. (Ps 2:7) and (Heb 5:5-6) [NOTE: When the Royal Priesthood of Melchisedech was made manifest, King David records: ‘The Lord hath said to me: thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’ Thus, heaven, earth, priest and king are wedded into a time template.]

This created God time of the world has to be the same for every observer, the same time in every era and every place. Accordingly, for a true Christian understanding of the Creation and time, the whole universe, from the earth to the furthest star, has to be incorporated together as a unit, that is, to serve its purpose in the order of things.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #162 on:** February 15, 2014, 05:32:24 AM »

APPENDIX ON TIME cont.

How then does the universe, including ourselves, comply with what we shall call Genesis-time? What is the one and only order of the universe that serves both revelation [A 6-day creation, 6,000+ years of existence to the present] and mankind?

And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen. 1:14)

Firstly there had to be an immediate creation, all instantaneously together, in brief intervals, or in that literal six-day creation of Genesis, and in particular the sun, moon and stars, visible to man on the sixth day. It must also be that God achieved the measurement of time by incorporating the whole cosmos (everything and everyone) within a finite revolving geocentric universal timepiece. The sun, planets and stars, as we observe, participating together in this cosmic clock, no matter how many of them there are or how far away they are, no matter whether they can be seen by the naked eye or not, no matter their distances, every star in the heavens rotates together with the sun.

A ‘day’ then, is actually a universal day everywhere, and a year is a universal year, everywhere. As to the credibility of such things, well they are what we observe, what we actually see and measure every day and year of our lives; what is, and is philosophically and theologically as plausible as God being able to create the universe in the first place.

But as we know, beginning with the Pythagorean heresy, Genesis time entered the mad-house of relative space-time. Once the speed of light was found to be limited, not infinite, this fact was applied to the supposed (heliocentric-measured) distances of stars. Stars measured by the unproven heliocentric system at millions and billions of light years away from the earth were then said to be seen as they were millions or billions of years ago. In such a scenario, Genesis 1:14 is rendered false and meaningless. If however, the lights from all the stars, those that we can see with the naked eye and through telescopes, were made visible on earth to Adam on the sixth day of creation as revealed, then no such delayed space-time exists, making all lights of the universe in the here and now with man, thus complying with Gen 1:14.

Moreover:

And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations bewildered by the roaring of the sea and waves . . . for the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming upon a cloud with great power and majesty. But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand. (Luke: 21:25)

So, does this prophesy not presume Genesis-time, the now for all in the universe? Try harmonising this future sign with relativity’s space-time.

Were God to move the stars then, according to science's light-year timing, mankind would have to wait billions of years to see them move.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #163 on:** February 15, 2014, 05:35:02 AM »

APPENDIX ON TIME cont

Eternity and Aeviternity

On the other hand we have that state without time, eternity, the ‘duration of what is altogether unchangeable,’ i.e., that which subsists by its essence and has no kind of succession, without beginning or end, and without the possibility of either.

I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty. (Apoc.1:8)

Christian theology teaches us that God created the universe we live in now from eternity. Thus time and no time exist together. This gives rise to the state of aeviternity, what the scholastics call periodic or irregular intervals of change, a mean between the changeless duration of eternity and the constant change of time. (Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, Bruce, 1956.) Such a happening would apply to an image, a spirit, or a person permitted by God to go out of time to eternity, and from eternity into time.

The sacred doctrine of geocentrism, we must now see, was more than just an astronomical theory, for it embraced many aspects of the Catholic faith and human reason as it applies to God, mankind, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo, even time itself; structures and images of hierarchy, unity, truth and beauty as well as the eternal fire intimately connected. Through the analogy and inherent reality of a geocentric creation of the universe, mankind comprehended the divine plan for their lives and ultimate salvation. God as three persons with divine nature reigned in His geocentric universe. But the forces of darkness knew that to topple one was to topple the other. Move, or rather remove, God’s footstool, the earth, and you not only unseat God from His Heavenly Throne but deprive Him of that direct union with man in the temporal world, stealing from man that reward that lies in store for those who do believe and adore God through this creation.

And if the promise of extra bliss in heaven is to be man’s reward through recognising and glorifying God in this sensual structure of the world, then it required the Church for the good of its members and glory of God to defend this revelation, both in the material sense and in its scriptural sense, so that man living on earth might know and confirm God’s existence better in this life even before the bliss of heaven for all eternity.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #164 on:** February 15, 2014, 05:40:32 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Chapter 5: Astronomy

Astronomy is basically a visual science conducted from an earthly premise. It has three functions: watching the movements of the heavenly bodies, charting them, and finally trying to figure out their relative movements. The first exercise is known as saving the appearance. The old adage really expresses a mode of knowledge whereby a person reaches conclusions from using his or her senses. A more precise understanding of the idiom goes something like this: from earth we see the sun, moon, planets and stars move in relation to us and in the case of the planets, in relation to us and the sun. Based on these movements, and using any instrumental help we have available, we ‘save’ on a chart what we see or what ‘appears’ in our vision.

This means plotting the daily, monthly and yearly tracks of celestial bodies as they ‘appear.’ Once all the motions are accounted for and ‘saved,’ then one can try to create an overall working model that tries to explain these recorded movements. The only differences between the ages are the methods and instruments used, and finally the amount of visual magnification available, that is, from the naked eye to the telescope and, of course, time in which man can record and compile data on the relative movements in the three-dimensional universe.

A look up to the stars on a clear night will show us this was no simple task, as the true history of astronomy shows us - a history that is quite fascinating. Domenico Cassini, for example, using the means afforded him by King Louis XIV (1638-1715), sought this history up to his time thorough research of the world’s oldest and rarest books on the subject, which he acquired from all around the earth.

There is no room for doubt that Astronomy was invented at the beginning of the World. As there is nothing more noteworthy than the regularity of movement among these great luminous bodies that turn unceasingly around the Earth, it is natural to think that one of the first interests of men was to consider their course and observe their periods. But mere curiosity alone was not solely responsible for leading men to set themselves astronomical speculations, for it can be maintained that necessity as well obliged them. For should one not observe the seasons that vary by the movement of the Sun, it would be impossible to make a success of agriculture; were one to fail to note the suitable times for travel, one could establish no Business; should one not have determined once for all the length of the month and the year, there could be neither order established between civil affairs, nor could days be marked out for religious purposes: hence as agricultural farming, commerce, politics and even religion cannot do without Astronomy, it is obvious that men must have been obliged to study this science right from the World’s beginning.

Both sacred and secular history confirms this truth. What the Holy Scriptures have to say about the years that the ancient Patriarchs lived up to, is proof positive that the first men studied the movements of the stars. For had they not taken account of the exact number of days that last the varying phases of the Moon which serve to conceal the months; and of the number of months during which the Sun little by little approaches the Zenith and afterwards distances itself from it, making the changing by increase and diminution of the days, which allow one to establish the length of the year, they could not have noted the number of years each Patriarch had lived, nor the times of their birth and death, as precisely as Moses records it in Genesis.

And there certainly was need in this first age of the world to observe the stars with a great deal of care, for by the circuмstances of the history of the Flood, which are also reported in Genesis, one can see that the year from the time of the Flood was regulated following the movements of the Sun and Moon: which supposes an infinite number of observations.

It is yet to be understood how all the application imaginable by the first men studying the sky could have gained them so much knowledge of the movements of the stars, unless their lives were longer than ours. [The] living of such long lives gained for them great advances in astronomy. Josephus was of the opinion that so necessary was this science that one of the reasons why God granted the first men such a long lasting life, was to facilitate for them the knowledge of the movements of the stars.

Nothing better helps to know the antiquity of astronomy, than what Ptolemy (120AD) says of the observations of the skies by which Hipparchus (140BC) reformed this science two thousand years ago. Ptolemy reports that those who were already called astronomers in the days of Hipparchus had observed that the Moon not only moves unequally both by longitude as well as be latitude, but also that the extent of its inequality, since known as Apogee and Perigee, successively passes through all the degrees of the Zodiac, and that its greatest latitude as well in the north regions as in the regions of the south is transported by the flight of time, by all the degrees of this same circle, in such manner that at each revolution the Moon cuts across the Ecliptic in different degrees.

That these astronomers, in order to discover the rules governing these inequalities, compared together many lunar eclipses by which means they sought to find the longest periods of time which being equal among themselves, each contained the same number of unequal months, that Hipparchus, to connect these long periods once found, had chosen from a great number of ancient observations those (4) proper to his purposes; and that having compared them amongst themselves, he noticed that the Sun and the Moon, starting from that same point in the sky, would meet 4267 times in 126007 days and one hour after the moon had made 4612 revolutions by the Zodiac with regard to the fixed stars, less seven degrees and one half, and that it made 4573 returns to the point of its apogee. That nevertheless after this period of 4573 revolutions, the eclipses do not come back to the original size, but only after 5458 months.

This witness by Ptolemy shows of course that some of these observations of the skies used by Hipparchus were very old. For a very long interval of time is required and a great number of observations as well to be able to conclude that these very long periods observed together by Hipparchus were uniform; it is not difficult to see the need for many observations to control this uniformity when one thinks that, [of] all the eclipses occurring from 2500 years ago to the present moment, there are not two that would be out of conformity with the spaces of these long periods.

An objection that could render subject the antiquity of these observations used by Hipparchus is that about-2200 years from the time this astronomer lived up to the Flood, which would appear to have buried all monuments of arts and sciences. But one must not be surprised that the memory of the astronomic observations made during the first age of the world could have lasted even after the Flood, since Josephus recalls that the descendants of Seth, to preserve for posterity the memory of the observations of the skies that had been made, sculpted the main ones on two columns, one of stone, the other of brick; that that of stone survived the Deluge, and that in his time one could see traces of it in Syria.

It is therefore established that right from the first age of the world, men had already made great progress in the science of the movement of the stars. One could even say that they were more versed in this lore than they have been since the Flood, if it is true that the year used as a yardstick by the ancient Patriarchs was of the greatness of those composed by the great period of 600 years, as mentioned in the Antiquities of the Jews, written by Josephus.

We cannot find in the remaining monuments of all the other nations any vestige of this period of 600 years, one of the finest yet to be invented. For supposing the lunar month of 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes and 3 seconds, one finds that 219146 days and a half make 7421 lunar months; and this same number of 219146 days and a half gives 600 solar years each consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 51 minutes and 36 seconds. If this is the year in use before the Flood, as there appears to be every chance of being so, it must be admitted that the ancient Patriarchs knew already with great precision the movement of the stars; for this lunar month accords, for one second out, with that which has been determined by modern astronomers; and the solar year is more exact than that of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, who assigned the year 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes and 12 seconds. [The tropical year is now calculated to be 365 days 5 hours 48 min 51.6 seconds.]

After the Deluge, mankind, having been dispersed throughout the world, the Kings of each people took great care to cultivate astronomy, as the historians of all nations attest. Uranus, King of the peoples that first inhabited the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, was considered to be of the race of the gods because he had a special knowledge of the skies. Zoroaster, King of the Bactrian, is only so well known because he excelled in astronomy. The first Kings of China acquired for themselves an immortal glory, for having made 4000 years ago, that is, shortly after the Flood, many astronomical observations that the Chinese have conserved to this day. Finally, Pomethus, King of Scythia, son of ‘Japer,’ that many famous authors hold to have been the same as ‘Japeth,’ one of the sons of Noe, taught his ignorant and stupid people the science of the stars; which gave rise among the poets to the saying that he had stolen fire from Heaven, and had brought statues to life.

The peoples had such great veneration for these great men that studied astronomy that they rendered them divine honours and dedicated to them temples and alters. But whatever one may make of all these stories whose chronology is perhaps not always very exact, it is certain that soon after the Flood, the Chaldeans observed the skies with much care. Philo attests that Thare, who was born in Chaldea over a hundred years before the death of Noe, was very much given up to astronomy and that he taught it to his son Abraham. Josephus adds that Abraham came to the knowledge of the true God in contemplating the stars; and that having passed from Chaldea into Egypt; he brought the science of astronomy there. This science was held in such esteem at this time that only Kings or Priests made profession of it. Perhaps this is why Virgil, speaking of Dido and Eneus, introduces Lopas, who sings what Atlas, King of Mauritania had taught of the eclipses of the Sun and of the Moon, and of the situation and movements of the stars.

Astronomy being held in such esteem in Egypt, it is not surprising that it was taught to Moses who was raised as a Prince Royal of the care of the daughter of Pharaoh. Clement of Alexandria says that Moses made great progress in this science, and that he later taught it to the Jews. Thus astronomy having come from Chaldea into Egypt, passed from Egypt into Judea, and was in a short time carried into Phoenicia and into all the neighbouring countries. (J.D. Cassini: The Progress of Astronomy and its Use for Geography and in Navigation, Paris, 1693, now available in English from Churchtown Books)
[/size]