Is the Bible the Word of God II?

Your notion that the Bible is merely "an interpretation of the divine" made by primitive people, is at odds with plenty of valid historical and empirical information. To cite one proof, primitives were incapable of producing the linguistic phenomenon known as ELS (equidistant letter sequences)that is displayed throughout the Old Testament. Modern people, even with the aid of computers, cannot produce a phenomenon like that. In consideration of the notoriously Messianic passage of Isaiah 53:10, for example, beginning with the second Hebrew letter that appears in the phrase "he shall prolong," and counting forward in use of every 20th letter thereafter, the additional phrase "Yeshua [Jesus] is my name" appears. The probability of this combination occuring by random chance is one chance in 50 quadrillion. Thousands of this sort of example appear in the Bible. Man-inspired (secular) works do not display this, so it isn't as if any text of substancial letter content would work. This is the merest fraction of like-impressive and like-undeniable data that the legitimacy of the Bible rests upon.
I agree with your statement that we know more about the physical world than the people who wrote the Bible, if by that you are talking about the wealth of specifics that creationists and evolutionists agree about regarding the operation of physical systems. But if you mean that evolutionists (people who accept by blind faith that NOTHING really did cause physical existence to come into being) know more about ultimate origins than creationists, such as those who wrote the Bible, then I disagree with you. The creationist advantage is that the physical and empirical evidences support their beliefs to a greater degree than they (the physical evidences)can be manipulated to support your beliefs.

I'll take a look at the (inevitable) "refutation" site about Bible codes."Evolution" (biological) is a subset of the overriding "cosmic evolution" theory, which is entirely "big banged" and materialistic (except for the sincere, but default, position of "theistic evolutionists").I appreciate the tip about engaging the proper thread. But just one more violation of forum: The evidence itself shows that the geologic columns were deposited more suddenly than over vast stretches of time. And the simple-to-complex life forms indicated from lower to higher levels in the columns, reflects an increasing ability to escape from the Flood.And thanks for the welcoming. Glad to be here.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll check'm out.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

I have a site-usage problem. What is the best way to locate responses people have made to my comments? Is there a helps site that explains how to use this vehicle efficiently? The "helps" thing I've seen on this site doesn't get into my concern. Maybe you could e-mail me at my personal address.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)Thank you.--Marty

Hey; that's more like it. This is a lot better than trying to recall or record all that stuff on my own. Maybe most people are good at knowing this kind of information without help, but for the sake of other newcomers, I'd suggest that this information be tied in to the registration procedure in some way. Thank you.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

Please elaborate this, by, for instance, stating how, without
manipulation, the fossil record directly supports genesis.
______________________
For whatever reason, the above is the only part of your message that came with my "reply quote" request, so I'll just discuss without.I'll use fossil dinosaurs. If dinosaurs evolved during a period of about 150 million years, beginning with an ordinary kind of reptile, then thousands of intermediate creatures must have existed. If creation is true, each kind of dinosaur would appear fully formed right from the start, with no intermediate type of fossil to suggest that these dinosaurs had evolved from a common ancestor. The fossil record of the dinosaur shows that every one of the different kinds of dinosaurs appears fully formed.From the Flood to a pharaoh led Egypt problem.
--how much time do you say existed between these events?Good question about whether ELS is based on first writing. I would think it has to be based on a first writing. I think the idea is that, for instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls would have them. On the other hand, if an ancient copy of the Bible only had the phrase "Behol my name is yeshua" instead of "Behold my name is yeshua" and there was evidence of an interpolation that could be corrected to add the "d" to "Behold" without changing the meaning of the original passage, I'd still be impressed.Hawking has mythologized that the reverse of the black hole phenomenon was responsible for the appearance of our universe. Just as the collapsing star shrinks into a singularity of zero size, our universe expanded from such a "point." He spiffed it up a bit in order to get rid of the singularity phenomenon requiring a beginning, but you do, perhaps, see my point. I think this adequately addresses your comment that you don't know anybody who believes that the universe popped into existence from nothing.People who believe by blind faith that God did it? It is by faith, but God made it easy on us in that the Bible is so consistent with the observable aspects of reality that lend themselves to comparison with the divinely inspired text.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

So are the Peanuts comic strips, but I don't see anyone claiming
them to be true.
___________________________
(I'll take what I can get with the limited "reply quote" option.)That's a good one. In pseudo-like manner, of course, the point applies to the fact that many things that are stated in evolutionism textbooks are true (the things that creationists and evolutionists would agree about), but people should't swallow the fiction and philosophy that are spun around it in an effort to make them appear as a seamless whole.
___________________________________________________________________We agree that "trends in the fossil record" CAN BE INTERPRETED AS "family" relationships, and yes, that the fossil record is incomplete. But I don't think that there is a real problem with the fossil record. There's a problem with the fossil record for evolutionist's because the bones don't match their theory. That's why there's so many problems with their metaphysical philosophy. That's why there's arguments among them about these imaginary evolutionary processes. What, for instance, evolved into wings on a non-flying insect? If we could find even one single transitional form, we would be able to know, immediately, what structures on the non-flying insect evolved into wings. But not one single transitional form has ever been found. There are many fossils of non-flying isects, and there are many fossils of flying insects, but there are no fossils of something in between the two. The same point can be made about flying reptiles (and about countless other creatures). Countless related mutations, then the elimination of those previous populations that had the "fingers" continuing to grow, countless struggles for existence, fingers getting ever longer and killing off the shorter fingered creatures--and at the same time, the series of additional related genetic mistakes generating the wing membrane, the flight muscles growing over the bones that keep suit with this process, teeth and jaws turning into toothless beaks (in the case of Pteranodon, for example), bones becoming hollow in order to make them lighter for flight, etc. I don't have that kind of faith (for the conjecture, not theory, of evolutionism) to account for the absence of evidence.
__________________________________________________________________Let's use the figure of 367 years. Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying that beginning with three couples (Noah's three sons and their wives), and given their "multiple hundreds of years" life spans, amid their commission from God to begin another "be fruitful and multiply" epoch, that the multiplication possibilities implied could not produce a sufficient population for "a Pharaoh culture" within the suggested time frame?
____________________________________________________________________Wouldn't your point about the ELS in your latter reply also be applicable, at least in principle, to what I said originally? Who's Brad?
____________________________________________________________________In the sense that "singularity" is a word, and therefore "something," you may be correct. (But how did it get there? Is it physical? If so, you must be saying you believe that physical matter existed throughout the infinite past. Do you believe that?)In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

Regarding the population growth following Noah's Flood; just as all of Adam's and Eve's sons and daughters are not registered in the scriptures, Noah's sons' offspring were not all mentioned. Just as Cain went out and married some woman (his sister) who is not mentioned by name, there were plenty of other sons and daughters born to Noah's sons who are not listed in the scriptures. I believe that the potentials of this "perspective" on the post Flood world, could handle the historical problem you were posing.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

Quote:
I put a great deal of effort into this very subject in another thread. You may find it interesting.Reply:
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?
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.In rembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

[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

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

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

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

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

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