Posted on 12/12/2004 3:07:51 AM PST by The Loan Arranger
For a lot of people, the Bible and mathematics are dry subjects, but not for Edwin Sherman – he believes he's found how the two fit together.
Sherman, founder of the Isaac Newton Bible Code Research Society and a professional mathematician, is convinced that the Hebrew Bible contains coded messages that are evidence of God's authorship of the Bible. His book, "Bible Code Bombshell: Compelling Scientific Evidence that God Authored the Bible," describes numerous examples of encoded phrases and sentences that are both lengthy and relevant to the text where they were found.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Methinks you're running into the same phenomena as crop circle debunkers. No matter the number of confessions to the act; no matter those who confessed also showed how they did it; no matter that researchers have replicated the most complicated cereograms using those confessed techniques -- there are people out there who still claim crop circles are all created by aliens, and attempts to explain them away are either part of a conspiracy, or don't take into account some esoteric feature known only to the true believers.
I have certainly characterized your 'logic' and points.
I don't recall characterizing your personhood as you have so liberally done with me.
I still find all your points thoroughly inadequate for serious assent or belief.
Those seriously interested in the truth will find and read the refutation. Your article is basically . . . hogwash.
I'm sure God is super impressed with your professional skeptic stance.
That is another interesting topic . . . . LOL!
No, son, *this* is what I was referring to as your "childish behavior":
"You could at least admit your lack of study when you pontificate so stridently."And so on. These are puerile emotional outbursts towards those who have committed the "sin" of reaching different conclusions than yourself."Either you are very ignorant of up-to-date research as well as a solid expose of McKay et al or your biases are causing you to distort reality 100% out of whack."
"Evidently you haven't read the research I just posted as well as plenty of other documents about the latest research over the last year. Or, your biases are such idols in your life that they distort hard reality wholesale into the land of OZ."
"I suspected that the truth and the facts were of no interest or weight to you."
You'd be more credible in these discussions if you could keep your emotions, and your penchant for personal attacks, in check.
Fascinating.
He's probably more impressed with my desire to examine a claim's validity before I accept it, than I am with your childish "rebuttals" such as the one you just made here.
Were you actually under the impression that such an immature remark would enhance your case in some way?
It's sooooooooo fascinating that you accuse me of personal attack!
Incredible.
BTW, given being a very close copy of my dad in appearance with some features of my mother,
I'm 100% certain that
I'm
NOT
your son!
LOL.
I certainly have to give it to you. You are a master of personal insult and attack!
Are you
REALLY
holding yourself out as a paragon model of
holding one's emotions in check?
Fascinating.
I still haven't seen you admit to any lack of thoroughness or lack of study of the topic.
Did I miss it?
Which part of the trouncing of McKay et al
did you not understand?
Here we're on much firmer ground (no pun intended). A worldwide flood would have left countless, unmistakable signs in the geologic record, and in the biological record (DNA, biogeography, phylogenetic continuity, etc.) No such evidence exists
True, but some very savvy scientists believe the flood was localized and there is evidence to support this. Read this:
Was Noah's Flood Local or Global?
By Darrick Dean
On one side, skeptics point to the "global flood" of Noah as a reason not to trust the Bible. No consistent evidences exist for such a flood. In fact, the evidence is against such a flood.
Many Christians interpret the flood account as being "global" as in the waters covering the entire surface of the planet. Often they scoff at the idea of the "local" flood interpretation thinking it's some aberrant theory. But what if it can be shown that a local flood is the more consistent and literal interpretation? The following brief article will attempt to show that it is.
First, it's important to note that the global flood viewpoint didn't reach current popularity until the 1940s. This came after much popularization by George McCready Price whom was out to disprove evolution. He believed he could explain geologic formations by a global flood. He was also intent on keeping with the teachings and "visions" of Seventh Day Adventist "prophetess" Ellen G. White whom preached a global flood and 24 hour creation days. Henry Morris brought Price's ideas into the mainstream with his book The Genesis Flood in the 1960s.
Prior to this, a local flood and the day-age theory had been dominant in Christianity. It's now becoming dominant again as Christians realize that old-age and geology do nothing to help naturalism.
In fact, "Deluge Science" is largely, if not entirely, a "knee-jerk" response to naturalism (also known as Darwinism). The geologic column, or layers, are often used by naturalists as a picture of Darwinian evolution. That approach fails as much as that of young-earth creationists trying to explain away geology with the global flood. More details are outside the scope of this article, but the bottom line is: Old age of the universe does not help or support Darwinian evolution in any shape or form.
But doesn't the Bible clearly teach a global flood? No, let's look at thirteen reasons why it doesn't:
1. Gen 7:11-12 and Gen 8 clearly show where the water came from (earthly sources including the atmosphere) and where it returned (into Earth). The water content on Earth today, even considering water vapor loss to space, is no where near the amount needed for a global flood.
2. In Gen. 7:19-20 we see that all "the high mountains...were covered." The Hebrew for "high mountains" can be literally translated as hills or hill country. The words for "covered" can be translated as falling upon, running over or residing upon.
3. The flood account also refers to "the earth." This can also be literally translated to refer to regions. Humanity was limited to Mesopotamia, so a local flood would still be "universal." Other examples of similar usage are found in Gen. 41:56-57 and 1 Kings 10:24.
4. The ark didn't land on Mt. Ararat as most think (see Gen. 8:4).
5. A comparison of the pre-flood Genesis chapters to the post-flood chapters, do not show the massive geological changes that a global flood would have caused (i.e. the landscape hasn't changed at all. Noah didn't seem lost).
6. Materials created from dead organisms (oil, coal, limestone, kerogen, marble, topsoil) are far greater in quantity than a global flood could produce. Global proponents claim the flood created these items in order to avoid the accepted view that they took millions of years to form. But by no stretch of the imagination was there enough life on Earth, dead or alive, at Noah's time to create all of those materials. Petroleum products were available before the flood (Gen. 6:14).
7. Evidence for a major flood can be found in the Middle East, but no consistent evidences for a global flood.
8. The Hebrew is particular in the limited types of animals that were brought on the ark.
9. All the species in the world couldn't have come from those on the ark without invoking rapid, macroevolution.
10. How does a raging, global flood produce distinct layers? These distinct layers show signs of being made by different methods (big floods, slow deposits, oceans, etc.). We don't find all life-forms mixed together as a global flood requires. No where do we find human remains with dinosaurs and other long-dead creatures.
11. Young-earth creationists (YECs) use limited examples of "trees in coal beds," etc., as absolute proof of a global flood. If such a flood was global, we would have clear, consistent and a great deal of such evidence. Not spotty, localized evidences.
12. YECs rally around Mt. St. Helens citing it as proof that formations can be formed fast. The fact is geology never denied this. We see evidence of fast and slow processes. YECs downplay slow processes and highlight fast ones and claim this as "proof." Such selective evidence hardly constitutes proof of anything.
13. Sure, some canyons are created by flooding. Some YECs try to say the Grand Canyon is one of these canyons (in spite of geologic evidence) and try to fit this into deluge theories (partly to try to "prove" the canyon is "young"). How could a flood carve out a meandering canyon? How does one explain its distinct rock layers?
It seems that the most literal and consistent interpretation of the flood account is that of the local flood. It seems that a global flood has been "fit" on the Bible simply to support certain young-earth beliefs. However, as seen, a global flood fails on many common sense issues and inconsistencies.
(Author's Note: For a more detailed look at this subject, check out the book The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis by Dr. Hugh Ross. The 2nd expanded edition was printed in August 2001 by Navpress.)
© 2002 Darrick Dean
Darrick Dean operates the Christianity and Science Resource Center website and is a volunteer apologist for Reasons to Believe. He has had articles published in Ad Astra, Space Times, Spaceviews and formerly penned the "Critical Thinking" column for the New Castle News. In 1998, Dean was awarded the Arthur L.Williston Award by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers for the paper "The Benefits and Necessity of Manned Exploration of Frontiers as Compared to Unmanned Efforts." He is a graduate of Geneva College where he earned his B.S. in mechanical engineering.
Damn,. I thought that didn't go through the first time. Sorry, Mods..
There is one interesting postulation on the NONhoaxed ones.
That we have a satellite weapon which can effect the unique changes in the grain stalks observed in the non-hoaxed ones. That supposedly, all an operator has to do is scan in a pic and the weapon can produce it in the grain field.
An interesting postulation.
It also doesn't surprise me that various orbs have been observed flitting and hovering about a circle IN THE PROCESS OF IT'S BEING MADE.
Time will tell.
Though this should really be in another thread.
I have FAITH, that what is writen in the Bible, is the Word of God, written at the direction of God, for the purpose of letting us know what was happening then, so we would know what to look for.
Do not attempt to disprove with science, that which can only be accepted on faith.
Ichneumon has been giving singing lessons, and he's wasting his time.
Junior started it...:) did not did too did not did too
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.