Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the Word of God II?
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 97 (12294)
06-27-2002 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
06-27-2002 4:55 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 06-27-2002 4:55 PM Percy has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 97 (12299)
06-27-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
06-27-2002 4:55 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 06-27-2002 4:55 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 06-27-2002 10:36 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 97 (12308)
06-27-2002 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Martin J. Koszegi
06-27-2002 7:18 PM


Martin J. Koszegi writes:

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.
Excellent question! I'll reply here because, as you correctly note, this isn't mentioned in the help pages.
If you click on your member name anywhere you see it you'll get a list of your most recent message in each of up to 30 threads. If there's a "Yes" in the far right column it means it has replies you haven't yet answered.
If you then click on the message icon for that thread that is in the far left column you'll get a complete index of messages for that thread, including the replies to each message and red and green indicators as to whether those replies have been answered.
Wherever you see the message icon you can always click on it for an index of messages for that thread.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 06-27-2002 7:18 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 06-28-2002 4:37 PM Admin has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 97 (12352)
06-28-2002 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Admin
06-27-2002 10:36 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 06-27-2002 10:36 PM Admin has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 97 (12685)
07-03-2002 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peter
06-24-2002 8:24 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peter, posted 06-24-2002 8:24 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 5:39 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 66 of 97 (12775)
07-04-2002 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-03-2002 6:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
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 get that too sometimes ... I think it's to do with nested
quotes.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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.

If we consider the fossil record as a sample (in the digital sense)
of the dinosaur population, then we have to consider at what
rate would we require fossils to be preserved in order to fully
reconstruct the evolutionary pattern.
I know this may sound convoluted, but consider a continous sine
wave with frequency of 100 Hz. In order to obtain sufficient
sampled data to correctly reconstruct that sine wave, we have to
sample it at a minimum of 200 Hz (i.e. minimum twice as fast), and even then we actually miss a lot of the real data. It works because
a sine wave is a uniform, predictable pattern.
If we view the fossil record as a set of sampled data points into
a species, we would require a large (can't even figure out how
large to be honest) number of individuals from each and every
generation to be fossilised to see the sorts of transitions that
you require. This doesn't happen, because fossilisation is a
reasonably rare event.
I know that sounds like side-stepping ... but I think the logic
of the argument is sound enough ... and makes either of our
interprerations feasible (unfortunately).
There are trends, though, which can be interpreted as 'family'
relationships throughout the fossil record. But, yes, the
fossil record is incomplete.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

From the Flood to a pharaoh led Egypt problem.
--how much time do you say existed between these events?

According to the Massoretic text (in which ELS appear) there is
367 years.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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.

I was thinking more in terms of having a verse, and changing the
order or numbers (hebrew numbers are letters too) or such, so that
the ELS could be incorporated ... I wondered whether Brad might
be embedding ELS into his replies
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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.

Is a singularity (even of zero size) nothing ?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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.

So are the Peanuts comic strips, but I don't see anyone claiming
them to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-03-2002 6:47 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Admin, posted 07-05-2002 11:13 AM Peter has not replied
 Message 68 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-05-2002 3:21 PM Peter has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 67 of 97 (12829)
07-05-2002 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peter
07-04-2002 5:39 PM


Peter writes:

I get that too sometimes ... I think it's to do with nested quotes.
Nested quotes only work for the [quote] and [/quote] constructs. If you try to quote a quote from a message that didn't use these constructs then the quoted quote can easily get garbled. This is because this UBB quoted message:
[quote]Quoted Text[/quote]
Gets translated into this HTML in the message database:
quote:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 5:39 PM Peter has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 97 (12853)
07-05-2002 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peter
07-04-2002 5:39 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peter, posted 07-04-2002 5:39 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2002 1:40 AM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 70 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2002 3:05 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 71 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 9:25 AM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6106 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 69 of 97 (12944)
07-07-2002 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-05-2002 3:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
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?
Just a little bit of extra information on this topic:
According to Genesis 12, there is a Pharaoh in Egypt during Abraham's sojourn there. Abraham was born approximately 250 years after the flood (Genesis 11). Genesis 9:28 tells us that Noah lived 350 years after the flood, so he was still alive at the time of Abraham's sojourn in Egypt (Abraham was still under 100 at that time - Genesis 21:5). According to Genesis 11, Shem lived 502 years after the flood. In fact, all the firstborn sons from Shem to Abraham were still alive at the time of Abraham's birth. This statement is limited to the firstborn only because they are the only ones for whom the Bible gives us the length of their lives. It is therefore not improbable to conclude that most of the other sons enjoyed similar lifespans, nor is there any reason to assume that this length of life was limited to the generations of Shem. Japheth, Ham, and their sons most likely were alive at the time of Abraham as well. There are 70 descendents of Japheth, Shem, and Ham mentioned by name in Genesis 10. Arphaxad and Salah each have only one of their sons mentioned, but we know from Genesis 11 that they each bore at least two giving us a minimum listing of 72 sons in Genesis 10. There are 14 fathers listed in this chapter which would give us an average of 5.14 sons per father. There are 9 generations listed in Genesis 11. Each of these generations is said to produce at least two sons other than the son through which the lineage is recorded. This gives us a minimum of 27 males. Taking our previously attained average of 5.14 sons per male, we arrive at a minimum average of 138.78 male descendents of Shem at the time of Abraham. Assuming that the descendents of Japheth and Ham were equally productive, we arrive at a minimum estimate of 416 males on Earth at the time of Abraham's sojourn in Egypt. Assuming a 1;1 ratio of males to females we receive an estimated population of 832 people. Please note that this is just an estimate. The actual population could have been either lower or higher. Given the lack of data and the nature of that data, I would conclude that the actual population was much higher than the stated estimate.
Hope this is helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-05-2002 3:21 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-09-2002 7:43 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6106 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 70 of 97 (12964)
07-07-2002 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-05-2002 3:21 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-05-2002 3:21 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-16-2002 4:04 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 71 of 97 (13046)
07-08-2002 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-05-2002 3:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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.

It's interesting, though, that if counted as 'limbs' insects
have ten the same as arthropods like crabs and lobsters ...
isn't it ?
Maybe the non-winged came from the winged ... or they both came
from something else ... one had limb supression the other
had limb specialisation ... but the point is, yes, the fossil
record is not complete.
It IS difficult to imagine (sometimes), but that doesn't make
much of an argument. I find it difficult to imagine that the
whole of mainstream science is wirng about the age of the
earth ... others seem to find that acceptable.
I'm sure I've read somewhere about birds missing an enzyme that
would cause teeth if it were present though.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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?

It's not entirely about populations, but that comes into it.
It's a whole philosophy shift into a 'kinghship' based culture
with no belief in Noah's one God (for whom he and his sons had
direct evidence).
All of those directly involved folk should still be alive too.
There's a thread on this in the biblical inerrancy section.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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?

Well ... I have to agree it IS still impressive!!
Check one of Brad McFall's posts
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

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?)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-05-2002 3:21 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-10-2002 7:29 PM Peter has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 97 (13180)
07-09-2002 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by w_fortenberry
07-07-2002 1:40 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-07-2002 1:40 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by John, posted 07-09-2002 7:53 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 74 by Peter, posted 07-10-2002 5:28 AM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 97 (13184)
07-09-2002 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-09-2002 7:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
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.

I put a great deal of effort into this very subject in another thread You may find it interesting.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-09-2002 7:43 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-10-2002 4:52 PM John has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 74 of 97 (13235)
07-10-2002 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Martin J. Koszegi
07-09-2002 7:43 PM


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 ?
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-09-2002 7:43 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-10-2002 7:13 PM Peter has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 97 (13262)
07-10-2002 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by John
07-09-2002 7:53 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by John, posted 07-09-2002 7:53 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by John, posted 07-10-2002 5:52 PM Martin J. Koszegi 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