|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,220 Year: 6,477/9,624 Month: 55/270 Week: 51/37 Day: 9/16 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4170 days) Posts: 20 From: New York, NY USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Possible Signature of Extraordinary Intervention | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
There seem to be quite a lot of problems here.
For instance in "word selection" you describe as "neutral" a choice of terminology clearly chosen to favour your argument:
quote: I think that "tendentious" would before accurate than "neutral" here. Likewise your choice of dating for the beginning of the universe seems to be based solely on modern scientific sources and not from the text at all. Or if it does there is no clue as to how you derived it. The complex and apparently arbitrary formula for the "Adam-Seth" timeline is another issue which needs to be addressed. Where did it come from ? Finally - for now - if the dating of events appearing on multiple timelines shows a disagreement, simply discarding the "worse" date as you say that you do is not the correct answer. Inaccuracies and inconsistencies are serious problems for your hypothesis and need to be taken seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: Unfortunately your choice of terms is no better - and arguably worse. The text does not contain any notion of a planet or space as we recognise them. In fact Genesis 1 seems to be in many ways a typical Middle Eastern creation myth where the universe begins as an empty and unbounded ocean from which land is raised. Any translation that works against this view is already departing from at least the surface reading of the text.
quote: But Genesis 1 doesn't have the Universe emerging from nothing. The primordial ocean is there at verse 1, before the creation of the day-night cycle.
quote: In other words any claim that there is an accurate dating of creation in the text is nonsense.
quote: The formula you gave - Age^2/120 - is not a substitution cipher. So I am going to ask how you derived it again. I am also aware of substitution ciphers and frequency analysis. What body of text did you analyse to create your frequency counts ?
quote: Which is exactly the same thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: Aretz does not directly refer to any planet - the visible planets would have been included as stars, with no idea that the Earth itself was a planet. Likewise the sky is seen as a solid dome holding back the waters, which is unlike our concept of space at all.
quote: I disagree. The waters clearly exist at Genesis 1:1 and there is no origin given for them
quote: In other words, all the actual dates come from science and not the text, just as I said. In fact - since you don't know how much of day seven has passed from the text you must have chosen the dates of your "days" so that humans show up on day six, too. And there are still problems with the text. The day/night cycle seems to be established on day 1 which is not possible in your scheme. Day four includes the stars outside our solar system - including many far older than the Sun. Birds show up on day four, before land life. Even the science looks pretty dodgy. Where's this macroscopic life that shows up when the universe is only 3 billion years old ? If there was too little calcium for large land life until your day 5, what about all the invertebrates using it to make shells ?
quote: No, I'm asking about your methods.
quote: I'm pretty sure it isn't a rotation code. All you've got is two three letter words where the second letter is doubled. To be a rotation code the letter shift would have to be constant and by my reading it isn't. Interesting though that you claim to have done a frequency analysis but won't even say what body of text you used to perform the analysis.
quote: So you start off with the assumption that Genesis points to real events.
quote: In fact we've discussed that verse and in context it seems to indicate the number of years before the Flood rather than natural lifespan.
quote: In other words you chose the code to fit the data.
quote: I don't think that that is a useful question. The first question is whether your method really does produce accurate results other than those that you have "fitted". So far it seems that your results are often wrong.
quote: If you have pieces that don't fit then either you've made a mistake putting the puzzle together or you have pieced that don't belong. Either is a problem for you that shouldn't be swept under the carpet.
quote: I don't see any justification for ignoring a discrepancy with any of your other lines here. In fact I don't see any justification for the text supplying a date rather than a simple order of events at all. There's no time given for the period between the point where Adam and Eve made clothes of leaves and when they were given clothes made out of skin in the text. As for the science, apparently you mean Mount Toba. Unfortunately for you the date I've seen for the divergence of head and body lice comes in before that, more than 100,000 years ago, and only indicates the first use of clothing, not a transition in the type of clothing worn. So it seems that your initial point was chosen by misinterpreting an early estimate for the first clothing, so even that is wrong. So, at present we see that at least some of your dates are chosen to match events (as you understand them) rather than being derived from the text. Some of the events rely on questionable interpretations of the text. Some of the dates you get are unverifiable or even wrong. This really isn't looking very impressive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: The Atbash Cipher is NOT a rotation cipher. It's a substitution cipher, but it isn't based on a constant shift (the cipher alphabet is the original alphabet written backwards). And it doesn't seem to be an example of the Atbash cipher, either - while the double Shin maps correctly to a double Bet, the initial Lamed should map into Kaf, not Resh.
quote: So you've come up with your cosmology, but it's based more heavily on what you know than it is on Genesis.
quote: In other words the dates come from your knowledge rather than any "code". THat pretty much eliminates the possibility of there being a "signal" revealing the dates. (Of course, your idea that we could only find things we already knew in the code was a very strong indicator that that was the case).
quote: Then why is your cosmology so different from that in Genesis 1 ?
quote: The verse means that 120 years was the time remaining before God wiped out humanity (except Noah and his immediate family) in the Flood.
quote:It didn't predict any such thing by your own admission. And clothing seems to have been invented more than 100,000 years ago. quote: I bet that it didn't.
quote: I very much doubt that your "code" can be said to meaningfully predict anything. And the evidence of this thread supports me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: That's different spellings of the name of the same letter.
quote: If the date is uncertain, then you can't just stick with the one you like and claim to be right. Especially as the dates in your code depend on getting it right.
quote:How do you determine the "end of day 6" ? quote: That doesn't matter. It still doesn't mean that your code predicted it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: OK, so to claim that your dates are correct you need only one study that you like, no matter if it is wrong. This will certainly help increase the probability of getting things "right".
quote: That hardly seems an important point. The more important point is that your algorithm is based on an assumption that is at best questionable and very likely incorrect - in fact quite possibly out by more than 50%, which is a pretty big margin of error.
quote: No, you haven't bothered to explain how you got those dates yet.
quote: So, as I suspected, your date for the end of day six comes from your knowledge of prehistory and not from the text. Well that simplifies things since we can ignore everything you put in about day 6 now.
quote: It isn't directly referencing head size, merely the consequences. And that's the best of the three. There's no clear reference to estrus at all, and since Adam was supposedly created to work as a gardner I hardly think that we can see a clear move from foraging to agriculture.
quote: This seems to be rather at odds with reality.
quote: You're going to need at least three GOOD data points. So far you haven't even managed one.
quote: Well there's no danger of that since Genesis isn't that old. However, I'd be very interested in it if the evidence was solid. But given how often it turns out that the dates come from you and not the text it's not looking like I'll see anything like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
You're still not revealing the important stuff - your dates and you you associate them with the events.
I'm not sure what you mean by Deuterogenesis. Adam is specifically placed as a gardener in Eden in Genesis 2:15 - no need for Higher Criticism, just a plain reading of the text.
quote: I mean that I can't think of any evidence of or pausible reasons for major revisions in the cranial capacity of early hominids that could have happened in recent years. "Large-brained" is a relative term anyway. Even the Australopithecines average larger than a chimpanzee or orang-utan - surely that counts as"large-brained" for an ape.
quote: However, much of your dating seems strongly dependent on the lifespans assigned to various figures in Genesis. There is every possibility that one or more could change through revision or scribal error, regardless of the general outline of the text. And Genesis 1 which escapes this criticism is one if the latest parts, likely Exilic. So even if you are right that parts of Genesis existed 3500 years ago, it is certainly not clear that your "codes" were there.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024