Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

[frankbaginski]

ARWallace,

I have been doing some reading on genetics and find the subject very interesting. I have only begun to scratch the surface of this subject and already I see complexity beyond what I thought I would see. Do you know of any study done about how something this complex could actually still be around after all this time. Without outside intervention and some maintenance I know we (people) could never build somethiing like this and keep it working.

I have looked at the process of cell division and the making of sperm and eggs. I guess someone could look at the errors in this process and conclude that those errors made all of the species we have today. But there are limits to that process. In fact of all of the possible combinations of DNA how many actually make something productive? And we also have limits like the mule which is sterile. So you place all of this stuff in a blender and add a billion years and life pops out. Like I said I am just getting started.

I look at all of these small parts that have to fit with each other and the relationships that exist between all of the various molecules and I am amazed. It reminds me of the genealogy of Christ in Matthew.

If you look at the Book of Matthew (in Greek) and look at the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-11) you will find the following all divisable by seven:

Number of words
Number of letters
Number of vowels
Number of consonants
Words that begin with a vowel
Words that begin with a consonant
Words that occur more than once
Words in more than one form
Words that occur in only one form
Number of nouns
Only seven words not nouns
Number of names
Only seven other kinds of nouns
Number of male names
Number of generations

There are over seventy of them. The odds that this code was written by accident is pretty small. 1 to 1.43 times 10(59) I look at the organic molecules the same way. Now Richard Dawkins says that we have billions of planets in the universe and we just happen to be lucky. I don't agree with him because he removes God from the equation and for a whole list of other reasons. One of which thats not enough planets. I wonder if the organic molecules have a code buried in them beyond whats needed to function.

[Himantolophus]

And you could find 100 scientists who disagree on what a species is, when a species has formed and where those species belong in a taxonomic classification system. And I have had discussions with many creationists who are anything but spurious when it comes to interpreting Biblical text to understand historical events - some of them on this board. So the purported discord you see is not the reason that creationism of any form fails to qualify as a science - it is because a central portion of their explanatory model is insulated from scientific inquiry. But they are certainly no less systematic and thoughtful in developing their model than a taxonomist is in determining the placement of a new species in a taxonomic hierarchy.

I did?

As someone who, if memory serves, professed to believe in the intervention of god at some point in the creation of the cosmos, I'm curious why you don't consider yourself an IDer? At what point do you check your religious beliefs at the door and begin practicing science? I mean this in no mean-spirited sense, only that it seems rather germane to the discussion at hand. If you maintain such theistic beliefs, than surely you must fit somewhere along the ID spectrum you say exists. And at what point is your set of beliefs more valid than anyone else's along the spectrum? Just curious.

ARWallace: all of those quotes above were directed at stuff that Frank said, not you. The first one was not talking about the defintion of a species, and the second one wasn't even directed at you.
For the third one, I can answer even though it wasn't really directed at you. I am a theistic evolutionist but I believe that God created the Big Bang (and all the laws with it). I believe he used evolution as his creative force but did not involve Himself directly in that evolution. I believe biogenesis as separate from evolution, and can accept the idea of God choosing this planet for life and placing the first cells on it. I believe he let evolution carry on from there. However, if science finds a reasonable explanation for biogenesis that is naturalistic, I an open to new ideas. I think "life from dead things" is inplausible and God allows for it to occur. So yes, I am a theistic evolutionist I guess, but an IDer as per the classic definition, no. Besides what I said above, I believe fully in evolution.

But that's not the point. You said they couldn't test their ideas. I say they can - and have. I don't disagree that they haven't conclusively demonstrated the Earth to be 10k years old to my satisfaction. But that is a very different statement than "In fact, they really don't have anything to test it.".

I agree. And if you have ever visited the AiG website (or its sister sites) you'd see that there are lots of people working on testing the questions you say they can't test. I'm just trying to present a more balanced opinion here, Himan - not paint you into a corner.

seriously, as a person who knows science, do you really think that they will ever find that the world is 10K years old? The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that science has moved on in it's endeavours to other topics. And they all base their research on the "Old Earth". If there is any doubt whatsoever, why would they waste millions of dollars on geologic, archaeological, and phylogenetic studies?
you are amazingly "mild mannered" on these supposed creation scientists! Most secular scientists immediately blast their work as unscientific. I can't see how you can consider their "research" as true science when they don't even follow the scientific method. They even have a statement of faith saying anything they find must support a literal interpretation of Genesis and anything else must be thrown out the door. It seems they have an intense bias from the start, even before they do any research. You have on one side 99% of scientists on one side and 1% on the other with their corresponding evidence... who do you put your cards with?

Moreover, creation scientists have been honing in on methods that would seek to describe kinds using objective methods, and there is a rich body of literature on this subject in the creation literature

again, they can sit with their "literature", but it has yet to make it into mainstream literature. I think only one creationist got published in peer reviewed literature so far, and he didn't mention God in his paper.

I disagree. There is routine taxonomic revisions at every taxonomic level in the Linnean hierarchy, and the placement of groups is anything but stable. There are revisions in families, genera,, orders, classes, and phyla and at all points therein (superclasses, infraorders, tribes and the such). And if things are so settled, why do we have one group of scientists arguing for a 3 domain classification system or a 6 kingdom system while high school biology texts still use the 5 kingdom system? My point is only this - you argue for stability in taxonomy based on stable definitions. I suggest that the definitions may exist, but it is an inherently subjective discipline subject to constant revision.

still, modern taxonomy is leaps and bounds again of whatever creationist phylogeny they may be working on.

Just for your information, I am studying to be an ichthyologist and I am really into taxonomy, especially the taxonomy of marine creatures. While the arrangement of species within their taxonomic groups is constantly changing, the movement of a species from one group to another (as in family or above) in the marine environment is very rare. The taxonomic defintion of "Mollusca" has remained the same and all of the groups within it (Gastropods, Pelecypods, Cephalopods, etc.) are unchanged. This is the same for just about every group.
As science and taxonomy (as well as phylogenetics) advances, I'm sure there will be major revisions of certain groups, but we will never re-classify a bivalve as a brachiopod or a nudibranch as a nemertean. Revisions within families and genera and species are very common and I am very familiar with that literature. I am currently looking to revise the genus Bregmaceros based on morphometric and anatomical data. There are indications that the single genus in the family "Bregmaceros", contains two distinct clades, one that is apomorphic and one that is plesiomorphic. Whether this means we have to create a new genus remains to be seen. We see the same problem in the wrasse genus Halichoeres. H. pictus from the Caribbean nests phylogenetically in with Thalassoma so whoever described it as a "Halichoeres" made a mistake. It may need a new genus.
My point here is yes, there are numerous revisions and additions to the taxonomic trees but it's not like we are re-classifying wrasses as damselfish or gadiform codlets as eelpouts. The placement and identification of a form as an annelid, arthropod, chordate, etc. has been stable for a long time. That is what I meant by "stable". Our definition of things from kingdom to genus is working well for us. Whether we need to create larger "domains" to explain the diversity at the kingdom level is ongoing. BTW, my latest textbook has the domain system ( as a higher category over kingdom) in it already.

[Himantolophus]

There are over seventy of them. The odds that this code was written by accident is pretty small. 1 to 1.43 times 10(59) I look at the organic molecules the same way. Now Richard Dawkins says that we have billions of planets in the universe and we just happen to be lucky. I don't agree with him because he removes God from the equation and for a whole list of other reasons. One of which thats not enough planets. I wonder if the organic molecules have a code buried in them beyond whats needed to function.

it is amazing that God may have put a code or some sort of pattern into the Bible, but that doesn't really do anything for ID. If 99% of the Bible is unchallenged but 1% is a fictional story, how does the fact that there is a pattern or code change that? They've found codes by analyzing Shakespeare by computer too...

[frankbaginski]

Himantolophus,

Many documents have been analyzed and none were found with any codes beyond what you would expect by random chance. So the Bible stands out by itself as a coded text. Many people thought that the writers actually buried the codes in the text on purpose. But that argument falls apart because in order to make the codes in the time frame they wrote them they would need to know the future and would require a supercomputer to help them. Prophesy stands as another layer of codes in the Bible.

I bring up the Bible codes only to show one of the foundations of IC. When you model a system and find that it requires more time or events possible from natural processes then you have to ask how did this system come to be? One answer is we will find out later and the other is a third party intervention. When we talk about organic systems we are faced with the prospect that the complexity that we uncover will make any system more complex not less. So my money is on third party intervention, it just happens to match my belief system as well. So I have not shoe horned the data to fit my belief I just allowed for the possiblity.

The codes in the Bible could face the same test as IC with organic systems. You could say we will find out some day or you could admit to a third party intervention. I find myself believing in a third party intervention. In this case the Holy Ghost. Now I can't submit the Holy Ghost to the scientific method but I feel no need to have that done.

[Gman]

Frank,

I would be cautious about these Bible codes... I wouldn't hang your hat on the supposed logic of it.

The fundamental premise of all Bible code research is that the every-letter sequence of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament has remained unaltered since God prompted the biblical authors to compose their documents. The actual manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, however, inform us very plainly that no two manuscripts are identical, different versions of biblical books exist in those manuscripts (sometimes involving thousands of letters), and the scribes who transmitted the Hebrew text at times made mistakes in transmission, and left notes in their copies about suspect readings in the manuscripts. These data testify unequivocally that the preservation of the every-letter sequence of Hebrew letters is uncertain. The author introduces the English reader to these phenomena so as to visually demonstrate that the certitude of the every-letter sequence required for the Bible code to be real is a demonstrable myth.

To take one example of how the manuscript evidence entirely undermines the foundational premise of a Bible code, the Dead Sea Scrolls, our closest textual witnesses to the original Hebrew Old Testament, have a markedly different way of spelling. In just a few verses there might therefore be dozens of letter differences due only to spelling convention (recall in English the word “color” vs. “colour”). The Hebrew text used by Bible code researchers is much younger than the Dead Sea material, and does not account for the ancient spellings. The significance of this can be dramatically illustrated. One Bible code proponent, Grant Jeffrey, claims to have found dozens of coded names associated with Jesus in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the Old Testament prophecy of a suffering Messiah. In just these fifteen verses, there are 115 letter differences between the text Jeffrey uses and the Dead Sea Great Isaiah Scroll because of spelling differences.

Here is a great book about it: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/nonfictio ... geBCM1.htm

[ARWallace]

Frank -

Do you know of any study done about how something this complex could actually still be around after all this time. Without outside intervention and some maintenance I know we (people) could never build somethiing like this and keep it working.

Well, I am not exactly sure what you're asking. When you say "something this complex", to what are you referring? Living organisms? I guess on the one hand there are studies that seek to examine the biochemical or physiological processes in living organisms - say, a series of studies that seek to explore the biochemical pathways in aerobic respiration or the genetic regulation of cell division. But they aren't really seeking to understand how it could have been around so long - they may get incidental information about this, but the assumption, I suppose, is that variations on these pathways that are less efficient are weeded out, and variations that improve the efficiency are favored. And there have been studies that have examine the evolution of certain features such as eyes or eukaryotic cells or mitosis - and these studies typically find examples of the purported progression from "simpler" forms to more "complex" ones still found in extant organisms on Earth today. I guess maybe I don't fully understand your question.

I guess someone could look at the errors in this process and conclude that those errors made all of the species we have today. But there are limits to that process. In fact of all of the possible combinations of DNA how many actually make something productive?

Again, I may be missing something here. I think we talked in the past about all of the different processes that could generate new genetic "information". Some of these include point mutations, and some include mechanisms like gene transfer, duplications or chromsomal mutations. Many will be deleterious, but many will be neutral or advantageous. And I showed with my stickleback example that small changes in certain areas of DNA (like regulatory genes) can have big effects on the phenotype - which, I suppose, makes something productive (at least it did for the stickleback). And gene duplications provide a whole different avenue for making new productive things. In this case, you have an entire gene complete with information for regulating its expression copied into the genome. With the original gene intact, mutations on the copy can persist with little consequence to the host...until something really deleterious or something potentially useful comes along. Does this makes sense?

And we also have limits like the mule which is sterile.

Well, this isn't really the production of a new species - it is sort of the reverse. Horses and donkeys share a recent common ancestor, and a reproductive isolating mechanism has arisen which prevents them from producing fertile offspring. That's the point of these isolating mechanisms. You see, once two species have formed, the offspring of hybrids of these 2 species are generally not as robust as either of the parental species, so it is disadvantageous to produce hybrids. So isolating mechanisms tend to prevent this - and one such mechanism is infertile offspring like the mule (offspring of a donkey and horse). A donkey x donkey cross, or horse x horse cross will both produce fertile offspring. But the cross between the species - not so much.

The odds that this code was written by accident is pretty small. 1 to 1.43 times 10(59) I look at the organic molecules the same way.

Well, I am not a Biblical scholar, so I don't have much to say on the subject. But in terms of science, I would say that one of the reservations I have with ID is that we are making assumptions about design based on our limited experience with design. That is, we only know what purposeful design looks like when it is made by humans - codes in scripture, faces carved on mountains and jumbo jets. But we forget that design can also come from a designer who had no specific goal in mind. The wing of a bird is very well suited for flying. One might almost say it was designed for flight. However, if you look at various lines of evidence - comparative anatomy, morphology, physiology, molecular and fossil, it would seem the wing (and other adaptations for flight) have arisen over long periods of time from some ancestor looking rather like a crocodile with feathers. Interpreted this way, natural selection has designed a wing. It wasn't purposeful in the anthropomorphic sense - evolution didn't set out to make a wing any more than it set out to make an arm or a flipper. But we have a desire to project our human experiences on nature sometimes - and while I share the sense of incredulity you have over the origin of life from a sea of organic molecules, we actually have a number of models that suggest just such a thing could happen without necessarily invoking intervention to design a cell.

[frankbaginski]

ARWallace ,

Back in the days of early telephone connections were made by passing the signal (voice) thru relays that would connect to a second phone. The contacts would get dirty and the mechanism would wear out. As more people wanted phones the switchboards became bigger and more complex. The parts in the system produced an upper limit to the size and complexity of the system. The failure rate of the parts limited the complexity. At some point the system would not work. As one part was repaired another would fail and the system would cease to function in any meaningful way. The people who ran the phone companies knew this and wanted to replace the relay with something more reliable. They hired three physicist, John Bardeen, William Schotkly, and W. H. Brittan. (spelling?) These three guys came up with a solid device they called the transfer resistor. Now shortened to transistor. This changed the upper limit of complexity for a while, the problem then shifted to wires. Fibre optics came along and then satelites.

From what we know the basic cell has been around a long time. So my question is, has anyone done a study of the upper limit of complexity of the organic structures on earth. The report you found on defect rates and known defects implies we are close to a problem. But that is just one of many systems to consider when looking for this limit. Since we cannot exchange parts like a telephone system we would have a set and unmovable limit. I guess chaos theory deals with the edge of change but I think this is in a slightly different light. It would not be surprising to me to find we are at the limit or have passed it.

I will look up your stickleback example and we can talk about that.

[ARWallace]

So my question is, has anyone done a study of the upper limit of complexity of the organic structures on earth.

Sounds like you know a lot about the evolution of the phone.

I don't know the answer to your question. My visceral response is that any such study will be limited by personal incredulity. That is, just because we conceive of an upper limit to complexity (depending on how you define it) does not mean that nature can't devise a new way to put a new upper limit on complexity. We are limited by what we know, and what we know is usually limited to our experiences with the natural universe. If you believe that all life began through abiogenesis, and you believe the Earth to be ancient - imagine that you could build a time machine and travel back 3.5 billion years, you would see a world dominated by creatures at the very zenith of their complexity. In fact, they tend to dominate the Earth today in much the same forms they did back then. I am talking about prokaryotes - by virtue of their size they are limited in the degree to which they can become increasingly complex. That is, they have an upper limit to the size of their genome which, in turn, dictates their complexity. The average bacterium has a few hundred to a few thousand genes - so they have an upper limit. So how did they get more complex? The theory of serial endosymbiosis suggests several trends and innovations occurred that allowed some bacteria to get larger, change the structure of their DNA from circular to linear and engulf other bacteria to perform specialized tasks. So the upper limit on complexity changed - and it changed again when multicellular organisms formed tissues that allowed them to performed specialized tasks.

So my basic response is that if you believe evolution has created the diversity of life we see today, that I can perceive no reason to expect that new biological innovations can not be produced that would change the degree to which complexity can be accomplished. But I know that you do not necessarily accept the ToE and its role in generating "complexity" - so take what I say with the proverbial grain of salt.

[frankbaginski]

ARWallace,

My expertise is in electronics. I started when we used punched tape and hand loaded data with little switches to make the ones and zeros. Premicroprocessor and prepersonal computer. The good old days.

I agree that we have limited knowledge in all fields but that has never stopped people from making grand conclusions with the information they have. I actually see the ID group in this mix. I think there is good reason to start the discussion but I think we are early. But of course I am no expert.

[frankbaginski]

Gman,

I agree with you on the letter skipping sequences. If you torture data enough it will admit to anything. The buried sevens in scripture are a different matter. These are true codes beyond chance.

[Canuckster1127]

Gman,

I agree with you on the letter skipping sequences. If you torture data enough it will admit to anything. The buried sevens in scripture are a different matter. These are true codes beyond chance.

The acceptance of "codes" in the Scripture is a matter well beyond inspiration.

On what basis do you make the unqualified, absolute statement that the "codes" you refer to are "true codes beyond chance?"

[Katabole]

With all respect, I never believed in the Bible code. I find it hard to believe that God would put things in scripture that we as learners would have to do a word search for, in order to find the true meanings. I do understand the acrostics found in scripture however, for example the sacred name of God found 5 times in the Book of Esther or the acrostic in Psalm 37. As Paul states in the New Testament, God is not the author of confusion. This is an exerpt from the introduction of "How to Enjoy the Bible", by Dr E W Bullinger:

A revelation in writing must necessarily be given in "words." The separate words, therefore, in which it is given must have the same importance and authority as the revelation as a whole. If we accept the Bible as a revelation from God, and receive it as inspired by God, we cannot separate the words of which that inspired revelation is made up, or admit the assertion "that the Bible contains the Word of God, but is not the Word of God." The position conveyed by such an expression is both illogical and impossible.

As we design this work for those who accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, we do not propose to offer any arguments in proof of its inspiration.

The Bible is its own best proof of its inspiration. It claims to be "the Word of God"; and if it be not what it claims to be, then it is not only not a "good book," but is unworthy of our further attention.

We cannot understand the position of those who assert and believe that many of its parts are myths and forgeries, while at the same time they continue to write commentaries upon it, and accept their emoluments and dignities for preaching or lecturing about it.

If we were told and believed that a bank-note in our possession is a forgery, we certainly should take no further interest in it, beyond mourning the loss which we had sustained. Our action would thus be consistent with our belief.

We write, therefore, for those who, receiving the claims of the Scriptures as being the Word of God, desire to study it so as to understand it and enjoy it.

When this claim is admitted, and a course of study is undertaken in this spirit, we shall be at once overwhelmed with proofs as to its truth; and on almost every page find abundant confirmation of our faith.

The Bible simply claims to be the Word of God. It does not attempt to establish its claim, or seek to prove it. It merely assumes it and asserts it. It is for us to believe it or to leave it.

Hence we do not now attempt to prove or establish that claim; but, believing it, our aim is to seek to understand what God has thus written for our learning.

Mk 4:22, For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

Lk 8:17, For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

Here is an explanation of the acrostics found in Esther from Appendix 60 of the Companion Bible, which is a KJV Bible with notes and appendixes by Dr E W Bullinger



60. THE NAME OF JEHOVAH
IN
THE BOOK OF ESTHER.



It has been observed by many that no Divine Name or Title is found in the book of Esther. This is the more remarkable, since, in this short book of only 167 verses, the Median King is mentioned 192 times, his kingdom is referred to 26 times, and his name (*1) "Ahasuerus" is given 29 times.

Jehovah had declared (Deut. 31:16-18) (*2), that if His People forsook Him, He would hide His face from them. Though the book reveals Him as overruling all, His Name is hidden. It is there for His People to see, not for His enemies to see or hear.

Satan was at work, using Haman to blot out the Nation, as once before he had used Pharaoh for the same purpose (see Ap. 23 and 25). Jehovah's counsel must stand. His promise of Messiah, the coming "Seed" of the woman (Gen. 3:15), must not fail. Therefore He must overrule all for the preservation of His People, and of the line by which that "Seed" was to come into the world.

His working was secret and hidden : hence, the name of "JEHOVAH" is hidden secretly four times in this book, and the name "EHYEH" (I am that I am) once. The Massorah (Ap. 30) has a rubric calling attention to the former fact; and (at least) (*3) three ancient manuscripts are known in which the Acrostic (*4) letters in all five cases are written Majuscular (or, larger than the others) so that they stand out boldly and prominently, showing the four consonant letters of the mane JeHoVaH. In the Hebrew , , , , or, as written in Hebrew from right to left, , , , . In English, L, O, R, D. Also the four letters of the fifth Acrostic, "EHYH".





THE FOUR ACROSTICS.


The following phenomena are noticed in examining the four Acrostics which form the name "Jehovah" :


In each case the four words forming the Acrostic are consecutive.
In each case (except the first) the form a sentence complete in itself.
There are no other such Acrostics in the whole book, except the fifth Acrostic at the end; though there is one other, forming another Divine Title, in Ps. 96:11. (See note there.)
In their construction there are not two alike, but each one is arranged in a manner quite different from the other three.
Each is uttered by a different speaker. The first by Memucan (1:20); the second by Esther (5:4); the third by Haman (5:13); the fourth by the inspired writer (7:7).
The first two Acrostics are a pair, having the name formed by the Initial letters of the four words.
The last two are a pair, having the name formed by the Final letters of the four words.
The first and third Acrostics are a pair, having the name spelt backward.
The second and fourth are a pair, having the name spelt forward. They thus form an alternation :
A | Backward.
B | Forward.
A | Backward.
B | Forward.
The first and third (in which the name is formed backward) are a pair, being spoken by Gentiles.
The second and fourth (in which the name is spelt forward) are a pair, being spoken by Israelites. They thus form an Alternation :--
C | Spoken by a Gentile (Memucan).
D | Spoken by an Israelite (Esther).
C | Spoken by a Gentile (Haman).
D | Spoken by and Israelite (the inspired writer).
The first and second form a pair, being connected with Queens and Banquets.
The third and fourth are a pair, being connected with Haman.
The first and fourth are a pair, being spoken concerning the Queen (Vashti) and Haman respectively.
The second and third are a pair, being spoken by the Queen (Esther) and Haman respectively. They thus form and Introversion :--
E | Words concerning a Queen.
F | Words spoken by a Queen.
E | Words spoken by Haman.
F | Words concerning Haman.
It is remarkable also that, in the two cases where the name is formed by the initial letters, the facts recorded are initial also, and are spoken of an even in which Jehovah's overruling was initiated; while in the two cases where the name is formed by the final letters, the events are final also, and lead rapidly up to the end toward which Jehovah was working.

Thus in the two cases where the name is spelt backward (*5), Jehovah is seen overruling the counsels of Gentiles for the accomplishment of His own; and where the name is spelt forward (*5), He is ruling directly in the interests of His own People unknown to themselves.




THE FIRST ACROSTIC (1:26).


is formed by the initial letters, for the even was initial; and the name is spelt backward because Jehovah was turning back and overruling the counsels of man. The whole clause reads as follows; the words forming the Acrostic being put in italic type :--
"And when the king's decree which he shall make, shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both to great and small." The four words we give, 1st, in the Hebrew type (with the Majuscular letters at the beginning of each word); 2nd, with the Transliteration; and 3rd, in English paraphrase, reproducing the sentence in the word LORD with the initial letters backward :--


4 3 2 1

1 2 3 4
Hi' V ekal Hannashim Yitt enu.

1 2 3 4
it and-all the-wives shall-give

"Due Respect Our Ladies

shall give to their husbands, both to great and small."






THE SECOND ACROSTIC (5:4).


is formed, as before, by the initial letters, for Jehovah is initiating His action; but the name is spelt forward because He is ruling and causing Esther to act; and take the first step, which was to lead up to so great an end.
The four words are :

4 3 2 1

1 2 3 4
Yabo' Hammelek V eHaman Hayyom

1 2 3 4
let-come the-king and-Haman this-day

"Let Our Royal Dinner

this day be graced by the king and Haman."


The name of Jehovah is read in the invitation, intimating that there would be a fourth at that banquet."





THE THIRD ACROSTIC (5:13).


is the beginning of the end; for Haman had gone forth from that banquet "joyful and with a glad heart" (5:9) "that day." Yet it was to be his last. Hence the third Acrostic is formed with the final letters, for the end was approaching; and the name is spelt backward, for Jehovah was overruling Haman's gladness, and turning back Haman's counsel.
The four words are :

4 3 2 1

1 2 3 4
zeH 'eynennV shoveH l eY

1 3 2 4
this availeth nothing to-me



The English may be freely rendered "Yet am I



saD; foR, nO avaiL


is all this to me."




THE FOURTH ACROSTIC (7:7).


is formed, like the third, by the final letters, for Haman's end had come. But it is spelt forward like the first, for Jehovah was ruling and bringing about the end He had determined. Haman saw there was cause for fear. A fourth is there -- Jehovah Himself! And when Esther pleads for her life (7:3), the king asks "Who is he and where is he?" which brings in Jehovah's own ineffable name -- the Acrostic of the five final letters spelling in Hebrew "I am" (see the fifth Acrostic below). Esther replies : "The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman." The king, filled with wrath, rises, and goes forth into the palace garden. Haman, filled with fear, rises, "to make request for his life to Esther the queen, for he saw


that evil was determined against him
by the king."

This was the climax, the end had come. Hence the name is spelt by the final letters :



4 3 2 1

1 2 3 4
kY kal ethaH elayV hara'aH

1 4 2 3
that evil was-determined aginst-him

Translated, as before, the Acrostic appears in English thus: "For he saw that there was



eviL tO feaR determineD


against him by the king."




THE FIFTH ACROSTIC (7:5).


in this book does not form the name "Jehovah," but the remarkable name E H Y H which means
"I AM."

It is noted in some manuscripts by Majuscular letters, which have Massoretic authority (see Ap. 30). The Acrostic is formed by the final letters, and the name is spelt backward. The king asks "Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart to do so?" : i.e. to sell for destruction Queen Esther and her People. In saying this he unconsciously gives the name of Him who came down to deliver His People out of the hand of Pharaoh, and had then come down to deliver them again out of the hand of Haman, "the Jews' enemy", who, like Pharaoh, sought to destroy the whole nation (cp. Exodus 2:23-25 with 3:14, 15). The great enemy of the Messiah -- the living Word -- was seeking to destroy all hope of His promised coming (Gen. 3:15), and make void the repeated promise of Jehovah.

Ahasuerus only pointed to human agency, but his words point us to the Satanic agency which was behind it. The Acrostic is in the final letters of his question "Who is he, and where is he?" Only the great "I am that I am" could know that, and could answer that question. Esther and Mordecai knew the human instrument, but none could know who was directing him but the One Who sees the end from the beginning.

The words forming the Acrostic are



4 3 2 1

1 2 3 4
hu'E zeH v e`eY zeH

1 2 3 4
[who is] he this [man] and where [is] this [man]

"who durst presume in his heart to do so": that is to say, to conspire against the life of the Queen and her People.

We may English it thus:



"WherE dwelletH the-enemY that-daretH

presume in his heart to do this thing?"

Thus was the name of the great "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 presented to the eye, to reveal the fact that He who said of E H Y H "this is My Name for ever, and this is My Memorial unto all generations" (v. 15), was there to remember His People. Here was a "generation" in Persia who experienced the truth and the power of this Name, as a former "generation" had done in Egypt.

The same "I AM" had indeed come down to deliver them from Haman; as He had from Pharaoh, and from the great "enmity" (of Gen. 3:15) which instigated both to accomplish the Satanic design of exterminating the Nation of Israel.

In these five Acrostics we have something far beyond a mere coincidence; we have design. When we read the denunciation in Deut. 31:16-18, and see it carried out in Persia, we learn that though God was not among His people there, He was for them. Though He was not acting as Jehovah, "that dwelleth between the Cherubim," He was "the God of Heaven, ruling and over-ruling all in the Heaven above and in the Earth beneath" for the fulfillment of His purposes, and in the deliverance of His People. Hence, though His name, as well as His presence, is HIDDEN, yet, it is there, in the Word; and so wonderfully interwoven that no enemy will ever know how to put it out.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(*1) In the note on Est. 1:1 this Ahasuerus is identified with Astyages, who is the same as Darius the Mede. See notes on p. 618, and Ap. 57.
(*2) The Talmud (Kelim 139) says "Where do we get Esther in the Law?" And the answer is "Deut. 31:18, 'and I will surely hide my face'". So here, the outward form of the revelation takes on the form of its inward and spiritual meaning. For the same reason we have the Divine Title "the God of heaven" as characterizing the book Exra-Nehemiah. See note on 2Chron. 36:23.

(*3) How many more there may be will be ascertained only when all the special scrolls of Esther shall be examined.

(*4) Fo 116 r other examples of Acrostics in the Hebrew text, see Ap. 63. vii.

(*5) In the use of these terms, "backward" and "forward" the English reader must bear in mind that Hebrew is read from right to left both in the spelling and wording.

Here is a Companion Bible appendix link:

http://www.levendwater.org/companion/in ... anion.html

Here is the link to How to Enjoy the Bible:

http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/1intro.htm


Hope that helps

[frankbaginski]

Canuckster1127 ,

Yes, I can make the statement that the codes reveil the Holy Ghost. The logic for this is: Once you find the codes then you check if the codes could have occured by accident. Once you determine that the codes could not have occurred by some random process then you are left with design. Design from men or design from God. A check of the data shows that names in this case had to be hand picked at the beginning of time for the codes to fall in place. Since man cannot accomplish this it is left to God.

Prophesy comes from God. In this case the prophesy is pointing backward showing that all of the conditions to make this code work were done since the beginning.

[ARWallace]

Himan:

ARWallace: all of those quotes above were directed at stuff that Frank said, not you. The first one was not talking about the defintion of a species, and the second one wasn't even directed at you.

OK. got ya.

I believe biogenesis as separate from evolution, and can accept the idea of God choosing this planet for life and placing the first cells on it. I believe he let evolution carry on from there. However, if science finds a reasonable explanation for biogenesis that is naturalistic, I an open to new ideas. I think "life from dead things" is inplausible and God allows for it to occur. So yes, I am a theistic evolutionist I guess, but an IDer as per the classic definition, no. Besides what I said above, I believe fully in evolution.

Well, this is interesting. If I might ask, how do you feel about ID? I am pretty clear on where you stand with creationism - especially YEC. But it sounds like, from what I am reading, your views do not differ significantly in the strictest sense from a rank and file IDer. That is, ID in the broadest and most inclusive scientific sense maintains that most structures and biological diversity are the product of evolution, and that the Earth is very ancient. But they also believe that god(s) {or aliens} intervened in biological evolution at some points. You seem only to differ in the instances and areas in which divine intervention occurred. So I am not sure how your theistic evolutionist views are discordant with ID except in the details.

seriously, as a person who knows science, do you really think that they will ever find that the world is 10K years old? The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that science has moved on in it's endeavours to other topics.

Well, I quite agree that science has pretty definitely determined the age of the Earth - as well as the age of the universe, and neither are 10k years old. But I think the point in question was whether creationists could test this - you said they couldn't and I said they could. Now, if you'd like to discuss some of the tests they have done, I'd be happy to. And from the little I know about the physics involved, I'd still have to say that they have done some wrangling and contorting to get the numbers to wind up at 10k. But that is neither here nor there when it comes to the question of whether tests exist that could reveal the age of the Earth as very young. That's the only point I was trying to make.

you are amazingly "mild mannered" on these supposed creation scientists! Most secular scientists immediately blast their work as unscientific. I can't see how you can consider their "research" as true science when they don't even follow the scientific method.

Well, I think I said earlier that creationism is not scientific, and that it never can be when you start with a set of statements you believe are irrefutably true and work backwards from there to support them. But here's the thing, Himan - there is a lot at stake for people who believe these statements to be true, and every time a new fossil, or a new dating method, or a new insight into biological evolution is discovered, it drives the wedge between science and their deeply held religious beliefs even deeper. This is not to say that science should stop because some of the answers it finds may not sit well with some people, only that I think the scientific community sometimes reacts harshly, rudely and unfairly to people when it comes to their religious beliefs. Consider this: suppose you woke up some day and the scientific community suddenly rejected the placement of your taxa that you worked so hard to describe. You'd fight, and argue and likely cling to your views because they mean a lot to you. In the end, you might accept the new placement. Suppose further that science rejected evolution in favor of some new theory. It may take quite a while for your to abandon your belief in the old theory and accept the new one. Then imagine that someone told you that Biblical scripture that is your holy text upon which you establish your religious views and calibrate your moral compass was incorrect. Moreover, they say, they have scientific proof that the text is wrong, and they further say that you must have the intellect of a pre-schooler to believe such nonsense in light of such overwhelming scientific proof. The biggest concern you had in switching from one scientific belief to another was pride, and there was very little impact on your personal or scientific life by rejecting one sets of ideas for another. But science challenging faith is quite another kettle of fish - religion (as you know) is a hugely personal and deeply significant experience for some people, and to be told that the beliefs you have are scientifically impossible can rattle you to the core. So it is not a question of whether I feel the Earth is old or if I think it is a waste of someone's time to try to prove otherwise. It's more about according a degree of respect to people whose core values are impacted by science.

I would hasten to add that the people who conduct the research that you feel is unscientific are, themselves, scientists. These are people who hold PhDs in the sciences and who have even published papers in peer reviewed journals. Have you seen this list? That so many scientists are active in an area you believe is not science - yet purport to be conducting scientific creation research should tell you something. These aren't Kent Hovind, Dr. Diploma Mill people - these are people with real degrees from accredited institutions. Why do you think these people can't understand that they aren't doing science?

I disagree. There is routine taxonomic revisions at every taxonomic level in the Linnean hierarchy, and the placement of groups is anything but stable. There are revisions in families, genera,, orders, classes, and phyla and at all points therein (superclasses, infraorders, tribes and the such). And if things are so settled, why do we have one group of scientists arguing for a 3 domain classification system or a 6 kingdom system while high school biology texts still use the 5 kingdom system? My point is only this - you argue for stability in taxonomy based on stable definitions. I suggest that the definitions may exist, but it is an inherently subjective discipline subject to constant revision.

Well, it is your final statement that is the one I think is the most important. If legions of taxonomists, working since Linnaeus can't definitely place taxa that have been described for hundreds of years (...and that there isn't a single working definition of a species!) should give you pause before criticizing a few creationists for their inability to define a kind. That's the only point I was making...or trying to make...

Just for your information, I am studying to be an ichthyologist and I am really into taxonomy, especially the taxonomy of marine creatures.

Sounds pretty cool. I have a little formal training in biology myself, some of it in systematics. Don't know much about marine critters beyond a field course I took during my undergrad many moons ago. Oh, and I like fish. They're tasty.

[Canuckster1127]

Canuckster1127 ,

Yes, I can make the statement that the codes reveil the Holy Ghost. The logic for this is: Once you find the codes then you check if the codes could have occured by accident. Once you determine that the codes could not have occurred by some random process then you are left with design. Design from men or design from God. A check of the data shows that names in this case had to be hand picked at the beginning of time for the codes to fall in place. Since man cannot accomplish this it is left to God.

I wouldn't expect the codes to occur by some random process. Language is designed and therefore anything derived from written words that are coherent which are consistent with the written passage itself is going to demonstrate a pattern therefore it would not be random. Furthermore you'd have to establish a control using other literature to demonstrate the same thing doesn't happen there.

Prophesy comes from God. In this case the prophesy is pointing backward showing that all of the conditions to make this code work were done since the beginning.

I highly doubt it. Again, it seems to me to be a matter of finding what you're looking for because you want to find it.

"Hidden" messages within passages is hardly new. It's been around in different forms of literature, including those outside the Bible (actually it's more common there, I believe) and it is part and parcel with things like Zoroastrianism, Astrology and Gnosticism, to name just three.