Hyper evolution in the bible

Er, no. These are some examples of stories from the Bible, and we know that you can interpret the Bible in any way you need to in order to support any arbitrary position.

Your "merged world" is not found in the Bible. That's the part that's your interpretation - your invention, in fact. No, once again, we don't know that. We just know that the Bible can be interpreted to say something like that. I can say it did not work that way, because you've had to invent something not found in the Bible for it to work. No, once more, the Bible doesn't, because you had to make something up for it to work.

Possibility is not, apparently, a prerequisite for inclusion in the Bible. The Bible describes the occurances of plenty that is impossible.Moreover, you're not the determiner of what is impossible and what is not. Well, no, once again - we don't see those things happen; the Bible says they happened. I can, am, and have denied it. Your concepts and phraseology do not appear in the Bible. You appear to suffer under the arrogant delusion that you get add appendeces to God's word.

I'm sorry, what? What definition of "alive" applies to the Bible?Boy, you people will just say anything at all about the Bible, won't you?

In the context of the Bible, God is capable of any feat.So what, exactly, is new in what you're telling me? That the normal rules don't apply when God is in town? Yeah, I think I knew that already. What's your point?

No, it doesn't tell us that. That's your interpretation, as I've shown. There's any number of other interpretations of rapid growth in the Bible that have nothing to do with any merging at all. If God wants it to happen without any merging, then it will. What couldn't you tell them before? How is saying "God did it by merging" any different than simply saying "God did it"? But your answer is still just "God did it." Why wasn't that enough to begin with? What about that answer is so insufficient that you feel you have to add to the Bible in order to have a better answer?

Back when I was a little more interested in the Bible, I developed an interesting model of my own. Mine explained the drastic shift in narrative and focus between the Old and New Testaments - from the harsh, judgemental, legalistic God of the Old to the redemptive, accepting, tolerant God of the New.I proposed that the Bible was actually the story of two deities - one, the God of the Word, who designed; and another, his servant, the God of the Hand, who implemented that design. In this way I paralleled the two stories of Genesis with the two Testaments. I proposed that the Word had instructed the Hand to create, and the Hand had come to love that creation; when he observed the Word become harsh and unfair to that creation he rebelled and usurped the title of "God." At that point he did the Jesus thing, etc.Interesting, and it does bring a discontinuity of the Bible into coherence, but I would never make the mistake of confusing my daydream for a real reality suggested by the Bible. And, with the availiability of the Argument from Ineffability, I never had to. What I don't understand is why Simple finds it worthwhile to simply push the unexplanability of God back one step. What's the point? Ultimately, you still have a God that can do whatever he likes, in any way that he likes, regardless of what is possible or not. Right?

But the Bible doesn't contain them. Only the Bible+Simple contains them. You have to add to the Bible to explain it, and even then, he's just promoting one more variety of "God did it by magic." I don't see the point in it, do you?

Right, magic. Neither is it limited by the presence or absence of the spiritual, so why are you trying to make it that way?

You need to head back to grade school English, simple. Similie: A comparison using "like" or "as".