Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the Word of God II?
John
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 97 (13264)
07-10-2002 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-10-2002 4:52 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

If I understood your response(s), you conceded that there may have been a gap between the Flood and the Pharaoh culture of Egypt that exceeded 1000 years, right?
It isn't that I need to condede anything really. Its that the longer the timeframe the more you stretch the biblical narrative. Stretch it too far and it breaks. This is not a problem for me. I think a thousand years is dangerously close to that breaking point. Four or five hundred years is much more realistic.
quote:
Also, regarding the mortality rate issue: the closer in time that a culture is to when physical corruption BEGAN (Adam's Fall), the more resilient its people were to the causes of death. The physical environment may have also been significantly more likely to increase mortality rates the further one gets from the time of Adam. The decline in the range of years a woman could produce offspring could easily have been far more years than what the discussion reflected, from possibly an incredible number of years for each woman immediately after the Flood, tapering down over time to what is indicated by the details of Abram's wife.
Evidence Martin? For any of this?
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-10-2002 4:52 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 97 (13273)
07-10-2002 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Peter
07-10-2002 5:28 AM


[QUOTE] The question I posed is not entirely about population
growth, although that is an important factor.
By considering 3rd-world cultures and population dynamics
we might get some general ideas about possible growth,
but I'm sure we can all come up with a set of assumptions
that would appear to back our positions.
We cannot know how hard it would have been just to survive
post-Flood.
Another factor is about cultural development. Is 367 years
sufficient to move from a clan-based, possibly nomadic
culture to Egypt with pharoah ?
Reply:
The cultural development would have grown right along with the numbers.
Which line did this culture come from ?
If we look at population growth as well, then the cultural
development of Egypt took much less than 367 years. That's
just the time from the waters receding to Abraham in the presence
of Pharoah.
We also need time for the clans of Shem, Ham, and Japheth to
develop and split apart to form sub-cultures. There would need to
be sufficient population of each clan before a split was feasible.
The first grandchildren of Noah were born about 30 years after
the Flood, and so we have to knock 367 to 337 years of cultural
development. We can knock another 30 (min) off this for raising
the grandchildren until they ahd kids. Now we are down to 307
years (approx.) And we would still be splitting a small
population to start a new thread of cultural development.
Response:
Do the scriptures state that the grandchildren referred to were the "first," or are they simply the ones mentioned? Adam and Eve, for example, had other children too, ones not mentioned by name, and, no doubt, one's not even referred to indirectly.
Say Shem's line ultimately lead to Egypt (just for arguments
sake not suggesting it was), and Shem had 10 children
in between year 30 after the flood (AF) and 40AF. That's
not sufficient population to split off I would have thought,
but to give maximum time, say 5 and 5 split. That's two couples
to found Egypt within 300 years.
Reply:
All sorts of people from various groups could have contributed to the Egyptian population; don't you agree?
You are unlikely to get kingships until population sizes increase
to a size where government is required. So the start of
the Egyptian court would be delayed for another 50 years
minimum. Long enough for at least one more generation to get
a foot hold. Down to about 250 years now.
With many more people, the basic elements of English government
haven't changed that much in the last 250 years. Sure technology
has changed (a lot), but the basic governmental systems
haven't ... and they are rooted in traditions that can be traced
back over a thousand years.[/B][/QUOTE]
Reply:
Since we're responding to the biblical scenario, we have to take into account the fact of longer life spans after the Flood, life spans that gradually tapered down. The range of years in which a woman could bear children could've been far more extensive than what is thought of as normal today. And it is significant that far more children could have been born to people than the comparitively few that are mentioned in the scriptures. As I indicated in another discussion, Cain married an unmentioned someone (his sister) after he was exiled from the region of Adam's homeland.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Peter, posted 07-10-2002 5:28 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Peter, posted 07-11-2002 3:43 AM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 97 (13276)
07-10-2002 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peter
07-08-2002 9:25 AM


Quote:
Hmmm .... same argument as 'Where did God come from?' but without
the easy 'Well He's eternal.' get out ... see what you mean.
I've heard a friend of mine who lectures in particle physics
talk about particles appearing and disappearing, and about
matter-energy equilibrium ... but it's outside my main interest
I have to confess.
Reply:
It's refreshing that you don't insist upon avoiding the original cause delemma that evolutionists/naturalists have.
PS--The quote above is all that appeared when I requested "reply quote." But that's OK. We don't seem to be as polarized as I am with some others.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 9:25 AM Peter has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 79 of 97 (13332)
07-11-2002 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-10-2002 7:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Reply:
Since we're responding to the biblical scenario, we have to take into account the fact of longer life spans after the Flood, life spans that gradually tapered down. The range of years in which a woman could bear children could've been far more extensive than what is thought of as normal today. And it is significant that far more children could have been born to people than the comparitively few that are mentioned in the scriptures. As I indicated in another discussion, Cain married an unmentioned someone (his sister) after he was exiled from the region of Adam's homeland.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

I think the longer life-spans add to the problem in this case.
The founders of the radically different Egyptian culture would
have near-direct knowledge of the one God through their still-living
clan elders (i.e. Shem, Ham, Japheth, and possibly even Noah).
Also, even the isrealites at the time of Moses, fell back to worshipping their 'old' Gods (or at least worshipping in the
old manner), which suggests a religion prior
to the worship of the one God ... but after Noah why would
those old God's be mentioned at all (by people) ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-10-2002 7:13 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 07-11-2002 11:50 AM Peter has replied
 Message 82 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-15-2002 3:27 PM Peter has replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 97 (13364)
07-11-2002 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Peter
07-11-2002 3:43 AM


What about cultures outside Northern Africa and the Middle East? Chinese culture has been around since before the flood and has remained, with no evidence of Jewish interference. How does this get explained by the flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Peter, posted 07-11-2002 3:43 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Peter, posted 07-12-2002 3:44 AM RedVento has not replied
 Message 94 by Peter, posted 07-17-2002 6:15 AM RedVento has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 81 of 97 (13400)
07-12-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RedVento
07-11-2002 11:50 AM


That's more or less the point, but with Egypt in particular
we have biblical evidence of a very short time for the culture
to arise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 07-11-2002 11:50 AM RedVento has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 97 (13580)
07-15-2002 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Peter
07-11-2002 3:43 AM


QUOTE:
I think the longer life-spans add to the problem in this case.
The founders of the radically different Egyptian culture would
have near-direct knowledge of the one God through their still-living
clan elders (i.e. Shem, Ham, Japheth, and possibly even Noah).
Reply:
I don't believe that this indicates a problem other than the tendency of Fallen creatures to reject the ways of the true God. And very early groups could've branched out to begin in new areas that became alienated from the influence of Noah.
Quote:
Also, even the isrealites at the time of Moses, fell back to worshipping their 'old' Gods (or at least worshipping in the
old manner), which suggests a religion prior
to the worship of the one God ...
Reply:
Prior to the time of Moses and the ten commandments, i.e., the time of their several hundred year exposure to the pagan Egyptian practices, but not the ORIGINAL practice.
Quote:
. . . but after Noah why would
those old God's be mentioned at all (by people)?
Reply:
As a historical backdrop to God's plan of redemption, it seems reasonable to include, among other things, the ongoing tendency of rebellious man to embrace pagan ways, rather than humbly accept the truth and be delivered.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Peter, posted 07-11-2002 3:43 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by John, posted 07-15-2002 7:53 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 93 by Peter, posted 07-17-2002 5:31 AM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 97 (13592)
07-15-2002 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-15-2002 3:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
I don't believe that this indicates a problem other than the tendency of Fallen creatures to reject the ways of the true God.
But you've forgotten something else about human nature. Fear. A god that had just destroyed the world would have fear on his side, and have it in spades. This is the kind of fear that lasts far longer than a few hundred years.
quote:
And very early groups could've branched out to begin in new areas that became alienated from the influence of Noah.
There isn't enough time for the groups to grow, split and grow again to the population densities required.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-15-2002 3:27 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 3:07 PM John has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 97 (13643)
07-16-2002 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by John
07-15-2002 7:53 PM


You made a point about fear. It certainly makes sense to me that people should fear God, especially when it's so obvious that he exists. The survivors of the Flood would epitomize this point. What makes one wonder a bit, is why people (even today) who are every bit as convinced of the reality of God as Noah's family was, would live as though they won't have to give an account of their lives to God. The truth, as inexplicable as it may be, is that the influence of our Fallen nature is stronger than a "fear of God" when that "fear of God" is not coupled with any proactive means of yielding to God's will. There's more to yielding to God than what fear itself has to offer.
QUOTE:
There isn't enough time for the groups to grow, split and grow again to the population densities required.
Reply:
Is it possible that there was enough time for people to leave the original groups before the original groups grew substantially, to then settle in Egypt and multiply?
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by John, posted 07-15-2002 7:53 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by John, posted 07-16-2002 4:48 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 97 (13645)
07-16-2002 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by w_fortenberry
07-07-2002 3:05 PM


QUOTE:
To obtain a more accurate estimate we could take the nine generations from Shem to Abraham and calculate each son begetting 5 sons. That would give us 1,953,125 male descendents of Shem. If we do the same for Japheth and Ham we arrive at 5,859,375 males. Again taking a 1;1 male to female ratio, we arrive at a world population estimate of 11,718,750 people.
Reply:
Indeed, and further, the above analysis unnecessarily projects limitations (numbers of generations within a time span for Japeth and Ham, based on Shem's line; limiting the equation to 5 sons or to only those mentioned by name in the biblical record; for example). We're certainly getting warmer.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2002 3:05 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by John, posted 07-16-2002 4:41 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 97 (13646)
07-16-2002 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-16-2002 4:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
QUOTE:
To obtain a more accurate estimate we could take the nine generations from Shem to Abraham and calculate each son begetting 5 sons. That would give us 1,953,125 male descendents of Shem. If we do the same for Japheth and Ham we arrive at 5,859,375 males. Again taking a 1;1 male to female ratio, we arrive at a world population estimate of 11,718,750 people.
Reply:
Indeed, and further, the above analysis unnecessarily projects limitations (numbers of generations within a time span for Japeth and Ham, based on Shem's line; limiting the equation to 5 sons or to only those mentioned by name in the biblical record; for example). We're certainly getting warmer.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

But you fellas are ignoring all of the factors that limit reproduction in the real world. Most notable, food supply.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 4:04 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 7:08 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 97 (13649)
07-16-2002 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-16-2002 3:07 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
[b]What makes one wonder a bit, is why people (even today) who are every bit as convinced of the reality of God as Noah's family was, would live as though they won't have to give an account of their lives to God.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I don't believe anyone today could be as convinced as Noah's family must certainly have been, but this is not a point I can argue really.
[QUOTE][b]Is it possible that there was enough time for people to leave the original groups before the original groups grew substantially, to then settle in Egypt and multiply?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
You would be starting out with very tiny groups-- four or five individuals. This is not much of gene pool. Even then, populations don't grow at the rates required. Too many other factors limit the growth rate.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 3:07 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 5:47 PM John has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 97 (13655)
07-16-2002 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by John
07-16-2002 4:48 PM


QUOTE
What makes one wonder a bit, is why people (even today) who are every bit as convinced of the reality of God as Noah's family was, would live as though they won't have to give an account of their lives to God.
I don't believe anyone today could be as convinced as Noah's family must certainly have been, but this is not a point I can argue really.
Reply:
I hear you, but I think we might just have a fundamental disageement about this. I believe "100% convinced people" exist today.
QUOTE:
Is it possible that there was enough time for people to leave the original groups before the original groups grew substantially, to then settle in Egypt and multiply?
You would be starting out with very tiny groups-- four or five individuals. This is not much of gene pool. Even then, populations There's plenty of legitimate grounds for disagreeing with you.
Reply:
Of course, you're assuming that what you say here is true. There are very legitimate ways of disagreeing with what you say here.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by John, posted 07-16-2002 4:48 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by John, posted 07-16-2002 6:23 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 97 (13657)
07-16-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-16-2002 5:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Of course, you're assuming that what you say here is true.
I did a considerable amount of reseach on population growth not too long ago, in response to a debate on another thread. Not to suggest that you should merely take my word for it....
quote:
There are very legitimate ways of disagreeing with what you say here.

Ok. I'm game. What are those legitimate ways?
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 5:47 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 7:20 PM John has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 97 (13663)
07-16-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by John
07-16-2002 4:41 PM


QUOTE
But you fellas are ignoring all of the factors that limit reproduction in the real world. Most notable, food supply.
Reply:
I'm sure that any argument that can be put forth to bolster your claim here, can be challenged at least as legitimately with another argument.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by John, posted 07-16-2002 4:41 PM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024