Below is the best essay to date I’ve found on this fascinating topic:
Lloyd Bailey, “Biblical Math as Heilgeschichte?” in Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr, eds., A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders (vol. 225; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. (The German Heilgeschichte means “salvation history”)
Bailey Biblical Math As Heilsgeschichte
Enjoy!
Very interesting, although I have trouble studying these subjects…anything involving lots of differing numerical or calendrical schemes.
Hello Dr Heiser, speaking of mathematics and the Bible, have you read any of the works from Ivan Panin?
They are a bit complex, however it’s interesting.
Google has some of his books for free,he was a mathematics professor from Princeton. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Hn5JAAAAYAAJ
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=OlANAAAAYAAJ
I thought you may find these good reading when you get a chance.
Thank you for the article, I look forward to diving into it!
I haven’t – I’ll take a look at the link. Thanks!
Panin is very interesting, and I would be interested in Dr. Mike’s perspective. Those two references are translations that Panin did based on his mathematical analysis of the manuscripts. I think his work is interesting, it touches on gematria and probabilistic incidences of various forms of words found in the Greek text. This is very different from the “Bible Codes” garbage (mostly) that has been promulgated. Panin was an agnostic Russian statistician who was fascinated with statistical anomalies in the various NT text passages. His work led him to Christ. As a Nineteentha dn early 20th century mathematician, he literally performed millions of statistical tests on the text and came to the conclusion that the NT is filled with hepatic patterns of all types. Number of nouns, number of unique words, numbers of definite and indefinite articles.
It appears he has used this in several ways, but two major ones. First, to confirm authorship, since each write appears to have radically different patterns, all of them hepatic.
Second, to confirm divine authorship, or at least influence. The statistical likelihood of even a few of thee combinations happening randomly are beyond infinitesimal.
Interesting stuff, and very old, and not at all sensational. But his theories are not in these books, though they are created by his method.
Lies, damned lies and heilgeschichte as Mr. Clemens might say.
Gesundheit!
Does any of this relate to the 600,000 Israelites that left Egypt?
No. The issue there is literary. See:
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/foutlargenumbersinOT.pdf
Very interesting read… on a topic I had never encountered! Thanks for the link! I can’t help but think on The Book of Enoch and the apparently exaggerated height of the sons of the Nephilim (something like 3500 ft tall?). This makes me wonder if that was a simple transcription error or a similar hyperbole.
It’s hard to know with numbers. The Enoch number is certainly not literal. Nickelsburg notes:
Ga (Akhmim papyrus of Greek Enoch (Codex Panopolitanus) and E (Ethiopic) specify their height as 3,000 and 300 cubits, respectively, but this reading is probably a secondary gloss …. According to CD 2:19, the watchers’ sons were as tall as cedar trees, with bodies like mountains. This excessive height, vastly out of line with the height attributed to Og (9 cubits, Deut 3:11*) and Goliath (6 cubits and a span, 1 Sam 17:4*), may well be related to a tradition that ascribed immense height to angels (T. Reub. 5:7; 2 Enoch 1:4; Gos. Pet. 40).
George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (ed. Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001), 185–186.
That doesn’t really help in terms of a cypher, but it is worth noting that there are other words in the passage that are textually problematic. These numbers make have arisen out of the consonants (or some reading) some scribe had to work with.
Dr Heiser, is it possible that it is just a cultural adage?
Could it be similar to when we say “that kid is stronger then a bull!” or “he’s taller then the Empire state building!”?.
Not sure what you’re referring to. Picking numbers according a mathematical schema isn’t an adage – ?
I’m sorry, I was referring to the Enoch reference.
I thought maybe it was a cultural adage or perhaps a saying rather then an actual number?
Just a thought.
I hope you enjoy the Ivan Panin books, the one on Mark is especially interesting.
In our study group we’re using unseen realm while going through the Jewish Trinity, your three on Eschatology and finally we’re wrapping up with your four Jesus in the OT.
Awesome material!
Hi Dr. Heiser,
Doesn’t Exodus 1:7-9 indicate that the Israelites were really numerous. Or is this a case of exaggeration from the Pharaoh; like some politicians would do today: the many refugees will take over our nation, without mentioning that they are only e.g. 20000?!
And in Exodus 38:25-26 the amount of silver is directly related to 603,550 men. Could there be a scribal error/interpolation in this section of the text?
Kind Regards
Marco
Here’s a link to what I think of is the best treatment of the large numbers problem. It’s a genre issue.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/40/40-3/40-3-pp377-387_JETS.pdf
Dr. Heiser, it seems like every essay on this topic that you’ve shared has proposed some sort of theological/symbolic meaning to explain the mathematical features of the numbers. But that “explanation” has never seemed convincing to me. Such a concept might make sense for the Sumerian King Lists, where the numbers are very round and obviously have symbolic numbers (like 60 or 72) calculated into them. But trying to explain the numbers in Genesis the same way—just saying that it’s some sort of theological mathematics—seems to me to be hand-waving, extremely ad hoc, and also unnecessary. It seems to me that the mathematical features of the numbers in Genesis could be explained as the result of converting into years from some other unit of time (from whatever source the author of Genesis used). Issues of conversion would, I think, also explain the fact that the King Lists and Genesis all have different numbers. Inventing a concept like “biblical math” seems more like an ad hoc response to embarrassment at the ages recorded in Genesis than a reasonable explanation for the actual numbers. While it may be impossible to perfectly explain the numbers either algebraically (with specific equations) or symbolically (as Heilsgeschichte or theological messaging), it just seems more likely to me that the mathematical features of the numbers in Genesis are the result of simple algebraic conversion rather than invoking some mysterious theological mathematics.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot since you started posting on the topic and I just thought I’d throw this out there.
No one has produced something in this regard that in turn produces a consensus of agreement. But articles like Bailey’s aren’t hand-waving. They do discern / ferret out mathematical consistencies. It’s just that they don’t account for everything (or so it seems at this point). What it might *mean* is a separate, but related, issue. It’s just an example of another try.
I didn’t mean to imply that the whole article is hand-waving. Definitely not. Bailey has obviously found some great connections and ideas, and it’s awesome articles like this that captivate my mind and make me start calculating, which is why I had to comment. Thank you for posting these very informative resources and please continue to do so!
Regarding Methuselah’s “age” of 969 – it is the sum total of all of the first 17 triangle numbers (between 1 and 153) – 153, of note, being the number of fish caught by the disciples when they were having difficulty and the resurrected Christ helped them out (John 21:11)
You can see it in the following table (I hope it formats right) and looking at the table explains what a triangle number is as well:
1
3 = 1+2
6 = 1+2+3
10 = 1+2+3+4
15 = 1+2+3+4+5
21 = 1+2+3+4+5+6
28 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7
36 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8
45 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9
55 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10
66 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11
78 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12
91 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13
105 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14
120 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15
136 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16
153 =1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17
969 (adding up the sum total of all the triangle numbers)
153 is a “resurrection number” in and of itself, where if you cube 1 and cube 5 and cube 3 and add them all together…you get 153 again, (1x1x1) + (5x5x5) + (3x3x3) = 1 + 27 + 125 = 153. So, Methuselah’s “age” hints at the coming (resurrected) Messiah.
I think this is all really going on, and that these ages have hidden numeric (and even in this case) prophetic meaning(s) and are not literal.
I believe he’s wrong about the numerical value of Methuselah’s name (point 3 on page 13 of the pdf). It is 784 (or 778 if you omit the waw). Otherwise, if it was a little neater (there always seem to be things that need too much fiddling to make them fit) I might be convinced!
I think the numbers are theological messaging as well. Have you been able to deduce anything like this for the other names?
Admittedly this is something that I came across in the past, maybe 3-4 years ago (I didn’t come up with it myself). But, after making sure it all checked out myself, I kept it in my files.
I’ll play around with the other names and see what I come up with…
But can they be symbolic AND literal? Is this too difficult for our Lord? We are not talking about everyone, just a few important people. OTOH, does anyone die apart from the permission, plan timing of the Lord. If He knows the end from the beginning, messy details like ages can be easily arranged.
Well, it’s not too difficult for God to make me the next American Idol … but don’t count on that. 🙂
That isn’t a coherent argument. It’s not about what God *can* do — it’s about the textual record of something that has already occurred.
Hi Dr. Heiser,
If this view is correct then Cain’s wife most probably could not have been from any previous children of Adam. Therefore Adam and Eve wouldn’t have been the only human beings around at the time they have been created.
Kind Regards from Germany
Marco
PS: I bought your book “The Unseen Realm” as soon it was available for Logos and I liked it a lot.
Thanks! Bailey would most likely not consider any of the genealogies to represent real people. Instead of saying “these were real people, but the numbers behind their ages are mathematical means to expressing certain ideas/theological points,” he’s likely say only that the latter.
Most interesting: When comparing with the numbers given in the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, at least those numeric phenomena that I checked out, still stand in all three versions, although many numbers are considerably different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genesis_numbers
Luke quotes the genealogy from the Septuagint by including Cainan. The Septuagint itself, in 1 Chronicles, does not mention Cainan. The Samaritans, unfortunately, don’t have 1 Chronicles in their canon.
It seems there’s a lot more to discover in those numbers.
Yep; no surprise. There’s something going on there.
Thank you!! This is right up my alley
One more thing as I ponder this. I finally looked at the original referenced article, and I wanted to address one more naturalistic observation, if not argument looking at the naturalistic view if Genesis 5’s longevities. Among all the amazing things in the Bible, the antediluvian longevity is among the easiest for me to fathom as a physician, and I often use it as a point of testimony.
Simply put, from a biological perspective we die because we are literally programmed to do so. Have you visited any 100 year-old persons? Not a very pretty picture! There is a reason for that transformation. Trauma and illness take some of the cohort, but old age is relentless. But what is old age precisely?
Old age is quite literally this: the fact that we run out of parts. Period. And that is ordained by the designer of DNA. With few exceptions, DNA replication is limited by the telomeres on the ends of DNA. Too short and the cell cannot divide. ( https://www.tasciences.com/what-is-a-telomere/ ) This correlates well with the announcement in Genesis 6:3 that man’s days shall be 120 years.
Many studies have been done, even before telomeres and their function were discerned. If one takes a cell culture from a newborn, one will see about 40 to 50 remaining cell divisions, on average. Do the math, and this is trillions of cells (actually, 1.25 QUADRILLION cells!). Plenty for a lifespan centering on a mean of 100 years. The actual numbers are hazy as I have not looked at them in a few years, but by late teens, these available cell divisions have been close to cut in half or less. And they decay exponentially according to how good you have been to your body. Every physician has seen a 70 year old that looks like they are in their 40’s, and a 50 year old that looks 80 (sadly, more of the latter than the former!). Or, as our favorite archaeologist Indiana Jones put it succinctly, “It’s not the years, it’s the mileage…”
Further, nearly all of our chronic illnesses are now understood to be related to genetic mutations that make subtle or major alterations of physiology which affect illness. Essentially all cancers are acquired through mutational vulnerability. Everyone has now heard of BRACA genes that code for breast and uterine cancer (Ask Angelina Jolie).
So, what if we had a different telomere arrangement? What if they regenerated? And what if we had a person that had no or few mutations. Each of us, quite literally, has 10’s of millions of mutations in our DNA code. Some are silent, like ordering a new car that is blue., It arrives perfect, except that the driver’s door is red. It will not affect the drive, but it is damaged. But other mutations are far worse, and affect function. Some in subtle ways, others incompatible with life. Not one of us is immune.
And, eerily, the 120 year limit is quite viable as a limit. There are very, very few credible reports of persons that have even lived that long. There have been many analyses of the idealized survival curve, and it generally started to drop precipitously at an age between 100 and 120 years. All the longevity research has focused on improving the cellular milieu which would buy some time, but the telomeres are the real problem.
What would life be like without telomeres? One would have an indefinite life span. Lacerations would heal in days like a child, rather than weeks like a 70 year-old. Cancers and cell damage would be instantly cleaned up by perfect surveillance T cells. Viruses would be stopped cold. Only trauma, or overwhelming infection, perhaps caused by malnutrition or poisoning, would affect the outcome.
So, regardless of the numerical messaging, genetically there is no medical reason why any of us would not have the antediluvian longevities reported in Genesis. None except for mutations, and a curious and rather strange non-adaptive governor of sorts attached to our DNA.
And while this sounds speculative, it really is not. Ask any geneticist what he thinks of a human without the telomeric limits and without mutations DNA with the attendant cellular dysfunction. They will certainly come to the same conclusion. This understanding drives longevity research–they see the antediluvian prize without consultation to the Bible.
Hi Mike, I am enjoying your book Unseen Realm. It is very useful in explaining quizzical verses that we tend to gloss over.
I am of the view that the ages and timespans in the OT are real years and that they total up to 6000 years to date. Add the 1000-yr Millennium and you have a 7000-yr plan.
The OT long ages are the result of a very different pre-flood environment, as evidenced by the extremely oversized animal fossils discovered. After the flood the ages step down to 120 (now at 70-80).
Ancient civilizations begin popping up close to the post-flood date (some pre-flood edifices survived). I suspect that the secular history sources contain timing errors rather than the Bible. (this is a topic that I would like to study more deeply).
The Big Bang Theory (old earth) and Theory of Evolution are based on false science and are not credible. I am an electrical engineer so I am very knowledgeable of scientific principles.
The geology and geography of the earth supports the occurrence of the global flood, most of the water under pressure coming from deep underground thru the cracks that run around the globe like the seam of a baseball.
Thanks for the opportunity to chime in for my viewpoint and provide a few reasons why I hold that view.
– Bob
Bob
I assume that you’re not looking for stuff to do on your own time (!), but if you ever read either of the two books below, it would be great to get a detailed review (with notes to academic literature supporting a contrarian view) to either of the books below. I’d post that:
The Rocks Don’t Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah’s Flood
http://www.amazon.com/Rocks-Dont-Lie-Geologist-Investigates/dp/0393346242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455909708&sr=8-1&keywords=rocks+don%27t+lie
The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Rocks-Time-Geological/dp/0830828761/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=51rxVHiqgfL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=13Y30D817RKS0NZCSNGY
Thanks for the book suggestions, Mike. I will definitely read those books and write up a summary review of them. It may take a couple of months to study them – they total >800 pages. I am still studying your books and other topics. God bless you – Bob
Trust me – I understand!
Dr. Heiser, much respect and all due kneeling to your scholarship and research, but I just hope that these referrenced materials on ricks aren’t heavily-invesyed in using arguable and indubitably pliable radio-metric dating methods to argue for something no-one alive was there to witness.
Again, please note my acknowledged inferiority(?) in the “scholarly discipline,” but oughtn’t even realize that by using our reasoning to judge the validity of God’s Word — even though notedly, it’s perhaps arguable as to which manuscripts are the ones our cornerstone quoted from?
Better yet: Isn’t it the gospel of Matthew that specifically indicates precisely 14 generations from Adam to Abraham, Abraham to the first diaspora, and 14 from then to Christ? Correct me if I’m wrong, sir, but aren’t I able to quote you as saying the New Testament authors were “definitely” inspired? Maybe I’m just a Noah fool…
The misspellings in here (in the early part) make some of this unclear. I have no idea what math has to do with radiometric dating.
Basically every NT scholar knows that Matthew’s genealogy is deliberately selective to make the units of 14 come out. There are several possible things this deliberate choice could have conveyed. I think the one that makes the best sense is that it’s a gematria on the name “David” (which would align well with a messianic message). From France’s commentary:
“. . . [T]he Jewish interpretive technique which depended on the numerical value of Hebrew letters: the name David (the fourteenth name in the list) consists of three Hebrew consonants, DWD, the numerical value of which is respectively 4,6 and 4, giving a total of 14; fourteen is thus the symbolic number of David.”
R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 31.
France prefers another explanation, though. He writes:
“If there is deliberate symbolism in the choice of fourteen it is perhaps better perceived in the fact that fourteen is twice seven, and seven is well-known in the Bible as a significant number, deriving from the seven days of creation, and occurring especially in connection with pre-determined historical periods (e.g. Gen 41:2–7, 26–30; Dan 9:24–27), notably in the organization of history into several (though probably not seven, pace some commentators!) series of seven events in Revelation. Three fourteens is six sevens, and a sequence of six sevens points to the coming of the seventh seven, the climax of history when the ongoing purpose of God for his people from the time of Abraham reaches its culmination.
But again if this is what Matthew meant he has not said it explicitly, and the fact that he divides Israel’s history into three fourteens rather than six sevens makes any such inference doubtful. Perhaps it is more likely that his focus on the number fourteen derives from his observation that there were in fact fourteen names in the genealogical list from Abraham to David as recorded in the OT, and his realization that a little adjustment of the king-list would allow him to produce a symmetrical pattern with the period of the monarchy highlighted as its central phase. In that case the theological focus of Matthew’s “book of origin” is not so much on the number fourteen itself as on the royal dimension which his symmetrical structure has brought to light by tracing the line of succession which finds its culmination in the coming of Jesus, the “son of David,” and thus potentially in the restoration of the monarchy.”
R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 31–32.
So, yes, if you think this points to some sort of error on Matthew’s part, you’d be a fool. It’s called literary technique.
“Basically every NT scholar knows that Matthew’s genealogy is deliberately selective to make the units of 14 come out.”
And they ‘know’ this how? Apologetically? I’m sorry but I don’t accept the refuswal to acknowlege errors as ‘knowing’.
They know it because they compare it with OT lists — which is something you can do (and ought to).
Selectivity doesn’t = errors. It means “I’m picking THESE names to structure THIS genealogy THIS way to communicate some specific idea.” That’s intelligence, not making mistakes.
Apologies for the mis-spellings, sir. What I meant to say is that I hoped the materials on rocks are primarily based on radiometric-dating. The reason being that radiometric dating is ultimately unreliable as it’s based on the assumptions of a process we weren’t observing to ensure nothing interfered with the radiometric decay (for instance, the concept of catastrophism — if a catastrophe occurs on, in, or around the rocks/sediment, then it would potentially greatly skew the “laboratory-rate” of radiometric decay.
A few notable examples would be floods (not necessarily global, although we can’t either demonstrably exclude that option), volcanos, the raining down of fire & brimstone, freak forest fires,…mudslides, etc.
I greatly appreciate the exerpt on Matthew’s usage of 14 — and I’d heard before that the Hebrew consonants for 14 were the same for the name “David”…but where exactly to go with that I’ve yet been lead…
Back to my earlier comment, the second paragraph seems but a fragment of a thought. I meant that by using our reasoning to determine the validity of God’s word, aren’t we in essence doing the exact same thing as the original fall? I mean, granted we could debate what “exactly” is “God’s word,” and what exactly it means, but I think Paul said it best, that the letter brings death, but the spirit, **LIFE**!! 🙂
Please don’t let my questioning of interpreting the mysteries of God’s Word hinder the life I bring…
*NOT…
“I hoped the materials on rocks were *not based on radiometric dating…smh
The problem here is the assumption that radiometric dating operates in isolation. It doesn’t. Scientists cross-check it by other means. It’s reliable when we’re talking about thousands of years for that reason — it can be checked against other methods. For a description of the method, and other methods used, see the Reasons to Believe website:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-dynamics-of-dating
Good reading…I still don’t buy it. The case is simple: THEY *DON’T KNOW the number of parent elements were present, they ASSUME it. Furthermore, to say that because *one erroneous dating method is “validated” by a similarly erroneous method is fool-hardy.
They can ASSUME anything they wish, despite what the DATA says. I’m not trying to argue for a young earth, not here, not now. I’m simply saying that it’s far too easy to become seduced by the “big fancy ‘scientific’-sounding jargon/parlance” they use in these lengthy explanations of radiometric-dating, as if they need to establish the expected “reverence for the genious of man.”
That’s just what the Spirit tells me, though…
Who are “they”?
Considering the Bible is a Quantum, genetic history of humanity. As well as ALL flesh on the Earth. This would encompass the Telomeres and time(base 60)… There are TWO creation stories of people in GENEsis.
CREATED man and woman, Genesis 1:26-28 (They had dominion)
FORMED man (to till the ground) with no woman, Genesis 2:5-8. The woman was later cloned out of the Adams rib or curve IE; helix curve. Genesis 2:20-24. Eve was cloned, from the FORMED man, or the genetically altered, originally created man. A cloned G.M.O.! More specifically a cloned, “Transgenic Organism”. Then altered to be able to procreate by the shining one. I think this meant gold DNA.(Shiny & twisted.. Look up Crispr9) She then SHARED this with the formed or G.M. man, who was WITH her. Hence; “I have gotten a man from the Lord/BAAL.”(This BAAL is a different code from YHUH)
She is also known as the mother of ALL living…
From the Hebrew name חַוָּה (Chauuah), which was derived from the Hebrew word חוה (chauah) “to breathe” or the related word חיה (chaYah) “to live”. Eve is the creation of a genetically identical copy of the male DNA code. The verb חיה (haya) means to live or have life, or to give or restore life; Strictly speaking, cloning is the creation of a genetic copy of a sequence of DNA or of the entire genome of an organism. In the latter sense, cloning occurs naturally in the birth of identical twins (Mengele research anyone?) and other multiples.
Very impressive analogy. Thank you Kim.
You are most welcome Wally! 🙂
2 Then the sons of God/males of the DNA code, saw the daughters of men/females of the transgenic organism, that they were fair, and they took them wives of all that they liked.
3 Therefore the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, because he is but flesh, and his days shall be an hundred and twenty years…. The tolomeres were shortened because of this inter breeding with the offspring of the transgenic organisms. Now also when this happened… 4 There were giants in the earth in those days: yea, and after that the sons of God/males of the DNA code, came unto the daughters of men/females of the transgenic organism, and they had borne them children, these were mighty men, which in old time were men of renown… Like the Ligers! Genomic imprinting! The epigenetic phenomenon by which certain genes are expressed in a parent-of-origin-specific manner. So the tolomeres were turned on and the growth hormones turned off!
My apologies. That’s backwards… the tolomeres were turned off and the growth hormones turned on! 🙂
You can’t get any of that from exegesis of the text. There’s no Hebrew word for “tolomeres”. Just telling readers the truth.
Why would we read modern science into ancient texts? To improve on what God had them write? Pretty dangerous 9and perhaps blasphemous?) approach.
Perhaps my comment just didn’t go through on the 26th. Let me try again…
Ecclesiastes 1:8 All things are full of labor: man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 What is it that hath been? that that shall be: and what is it that hath been done? that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun… 10 Is there anything, whereof one may say, Behold this, it is new? it hath been already in the old time that was before us.
11 There is no memory of the former, neither shalt there be a remembrance of the latter that shall be, with them that shall come after.
There may not be a “hebrew word for tolomeres”. However, GENEsis 6:3 describes the function of the tolomeres. If common sense is blasphemous… There’s a serious problem.I DID get ALL of that from the text.
John 1:1 shows us the “name” is equivalent to DNA code & the 3rd commandment says… Do not take it in vain or Do not take it to nothingness… Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word (DNA,as the word was made flesh, it was with Yahuah & it WAS Yahuah!) of my patience,(Or, FORBEARANCE:a refraining from the enforcement of something as right, that is due) therefore I will deliver thee from the hour of tentation,(noun 1.a method of achieving the correct adjustment of a mechanical device by a series of trials) ***TRANS-HUMANISM*** which will come upon ALL the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Just letting the readers know the truth. 🙂
Genesis is not doing genetics. You’re basically abusing the biblical text, bending it to your will. God / Jesus isn’t DNA, either.
Don’t expect me to keep posting this sort of stuff. It’s fine here, as it illustrates a point.
You mortals are all so LOST. Are you all really so conceited with your own perceptions of reality to think that your understanding of “genetics” and “DNA” is what Father God (YHWH) really created? There *is value in decyphering “nature” according to that code, but to establish your entire worldview on physical matter is to fall short of the wonders of the greater creation.
Why are humans so entrapped within their three-dimensional world — when they’ve been given the abilities to at least envision a much greater-dimensional reality? The concept of “Flatlandia” is easy enough to embrace, but to conceptualize higher dimensions?
First time an immortal has ever commented on my blog! Cool. Or maybe you’re an ascended master.
Wowers! Koot Hoomi is here with us!
MSH March 1, 2016
Who are “they”?
Reviewing my own comment, I see there’s 3 discreet instances in which I use “they”:
“THEY *DON’T KNOW the number of parent elements [that] were present, they ASSUME it.”
“They” is the people calculating the radio-mmetric dates obiously. I don’t think you were asking about this.
“They can ASSUME anything they wish, despite what the DATA says.”
Again, this “they” is the people calculating the radio-mmetric dates, and again, I doubt this is what you were asking about.
“…it’s far too easy to become seduced by the ‘big fancy ‘scientific’-sounding jargon/parlance’ they use in these lengthy explanations of radiometric-dating, as if they need to establish the expected “reverence for the genious of man.”
This, clearly is the instance of “they” to which you’re inquiring, doctor. While it would be rather easy to conclude, as in the previous instances, this “they” is referring to “the people calculating the radio-mmetric dates,” I suppose more specifically I’m referring to the “”powers and principalities” of the enemy whom ultimately control the thoughts of unbelievers…
This doesn’t really work. Lots of Christians do radiometric dating — ? (Christians in geology and anthropology anyway). Radiometric dating doesn’t really have anything to do with the original post, either, so far as I can tell.
Agreed the OP doesn’t mention radiometric dating; it was a tangient that sprung from an incorrect reading (on my part) of your reference to a couple books. The simple fact is: NO DATING METHOD IS FOOLPROOF — but I’m not interested in debating the topic any further. Let us never forget that WE’RE FIGHTING FROM VICTORY!! Jesus Christ, the netzer, has already delivered the finishing blow to the enemy and its’ utter foolishness for us to bicker about minutiae as the nachash staggers around about to drop to the canvas any minute…
I bless you, Doctor…**RECEIVE**… 😉