why I became a scientist who is a creationist

For
Other
Topics
--------->
Click
on Icon
Links

Mike's Origins Resources: A PhD Creationist's view of science, origins, and the future hope of the human race; by looking at Creation Science, Biblical Evidence, and Prophecy Molecular History Research Center Genesis 5 & 11: A comparison of the early Genesis 5, 11 genealogies in the early Massoretic (Hebrew), Septuagint (LXX), and Samaritan Pentateuch Manuscripts.

why I became a scientist who is a creationist

A Comparison of early Biblical Manuscripts:
Detailing Genesis 5 and 11

Why is a comparison of ancient Bible Manuscripts needed?

If you study the Combined Bar Graph, you will see that the differences between the different manuscripts are quite marked. Looking at the generations from Adam to Joseph you will see that the Massoretic text indicates 2400 years. The Septuagint text depicts an astounding 3850 years, 1450 more years than the Massoretic text! The Samaritan Pentateuch is more closely aligned with the Massoretic text, indicating 2600 years.

Both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint Manuscripts show a longer period of time than our traditional Massoretic text which is the source for our Bibles today. In trying to align the Biblical dates with historical dates from other sources, it was always found that Biblical dates were too young to compare with historical dates. In the past the differences were almost astronomical, much greater than today. Since then, however, opinion has changed due to more recent discoveries, allowing historical dates to be much younger then was originally thought. In fact opinion has changed to the extent that the extra 1450 years indicated in the Septuagint would allow for a good alignment of the Bible dates with other historical sources. So many Christians are now starting to look toward the Septuagint text as being more correct because they think the timing problems of the Old Testament will be eliminated by it's use.

Limitations of the Historical Science

However, in any kind of a historical science, assumptions have to be made in the assessing of historical dates. Because it is assumed that man has ascended over a long period of time, researchers almost automatically want to lengthen the amount of time indicated by the artifacts uncovered in archeological digs. I am not trying to say that they are falsifying their data. On the contrary they wouldn't need to falsify anything. Historical data can be so inconclusive that a host of positions is possible from almost any data that is collected.

Man is thought to have progressed through a long period of prehistory (cave man's experience) before some sort of civilization is started. Only after civilization begins can we begin to gather some sort of data from the discovery of the artifacts that are found (Pieces of pottery, etc.). The artifacts according to today's traditional thinking should be slowly progressing in complexity as it is thought that man is progressing in his abilities and ideas that he uses. Any artifact that does not match this pattern is thought to be an intrusion, where man has somehow buried these artifacts at a later date.

If man is thought to have progressed over long periods of time, even within the later civilization phase of his existence, than surely as the artifacts are recovered from archaeological sites, the theories and ideas developed will reflect their original thinking. This is how science can work when the evidence is fragmentary at best. We are trying to determine what has happened in the past and we must use fragmentary bits of data with our own ideas of how things must have happened to come up with theories and models.

Assumptions throughout the scientific process are extremely important because they must hold the facts together. Only when specific data comes that either substantiates or falsifies the previously held assumption, can it be known if the thinking was originally correct. Unfortunately, with fragmentary data, the artifact that might falsify a theory is extremely hard in coming. So the problem must be solved by a host of assumptions that will probably never be tested.

The areas of science, which are the most successful, which the public notices, are the amazing discoveries in medicine, biology, space exploration, and the like. These are the areas that deal with the here and now. If an experiment is conducted and the information needed to answer the problem is not easily forthcoming, then another experiment can be designed to answer the problem. The process can continue until some answer to the problem is understood. The problem is only limited by money, ingenuity, and the technical difficulties that have to be surmounted.

In addition to the above limitations of science, historical science is limited by the fragmentary nature of the artifacts that the scientist is able to find. In effect, the accuracy of ideas is limited by the assumptions chosen by the researchers themselves and the data they are able to collect.

Dating Techniques: Do they give correct dates?

One tool that Archeologist are dependent on, is the use of dating methods to ascertain the approximate age of an artifact or ruin he or she finds. The Archeologist assumes that the date they receive is generally correct. However, dating mechanisms have their own set of assumptions that need to be realized.

If the Creation/Flood scenario as indicated by the Bible is correct, then any age significantly over 6000 years would have to be incorrect. Yet Carbon dates, for example, can theoretically go back to possibly 50,000 - 70,000 years or more using the development of accelerator mass spectrometry. That is an order of magnitude of difference! How can these dates be made to agree with each other?

The fact that the Massoretic ages are too young could be the results of wrong assumptions taken in the Carbon 14 determination of artifacts. Check out my discussion on Carbon 14 dating techniques: Carbon 14 Discussion on Assumptions. A distinctly Creation/Flood perspective will be taken and the assumptions needed for what ever position taken will be discussed.

Author's Experience in Christ

I choose the Bible as having the correct explanation for our existence because of my experience in Christ, plain and simple. I have two links that describe this experience. The first, Why did I ever become a creationist?, and then my book, The Joy of Winning With Christ both describe, at least in part, the experience that I had with my Maker. It is the experiences that I had, that has helped me make up my mind that God is real and that He loves even me!

There is a lot of similarity in the Manuscripts

It is the author's view that the prophets spoke with their own words, the thoughts that they had. It is true that the Lord influenced them through specific messages, dreams, or a special urgency. But the prophets then had to formulate their own words, and at times, make conclusions and choices as they relayed the message that the Lord gave them, to the people. The Bible was not verbally inspired but that it was conceptually inspired. The Lord did not dictate messages to His prophets as a normal means of communication, instead He allowed His prophets to formulate the messages of God in their own words.

This means of communication by the various prophets, is especially apparent in the New Testament. Paul is clearly writing in his own words, letters to the various churches.

Infallibility and Freedom of Will

There is much in the three Manuscripts that are in agreement. The life spans in the Massoretic and Samaritan Pentateuch are identical except for Jared, Methuselah, Lamech, and Eber. The Septuagint agrees with the Massoretic from Adam to Shem except for Lamech. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both indicate the same number of years that each generation after the flood, lived when his son was born. That is except for Nahor, Terah, and of course there is an extra generation in the Septuagint.

Comparison of the Early Manuscripts give evidence of deliberate tampering

A comparison between the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch from Adam and Lamech show an interesting relation in the age of each generation when the son was born. The Septuagint shows an extra 100 years for each generation. The same sort of thing happens after the flood. Also, the age for most of the generations after the flood is an extra 100 years in both the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch over the Massoretic text. The specific kind of differences we see in the different manuscripts indicates that deliberate effort was made to change the data of Genesis 5 and 11. In addition, we see that there was more than one deliberate effort. The changes are numerous enough that it is hard to determine which of the three is the correct historical data. That is if any of the three manuscripts reflect the original.

Another interesting feature that is found in the Samaritan Pentaeuch is the fast progression of generations before the flood, the Samaritan Pentateuch has to have a steady decrease in the life span of the later generations before the flood in order to have them die before the beginning of the flood. The Septuagint with a generally slower progression of generations does not have that problem. However, There is a problem with Methuselah living through the time of the flood. Some additions of the Septuagint have corrected the problem by having Methuselah's age at the birth of Lamech as 187 instead of 167 years, possibly in an attempt to avoid the obvious difficulty of having Methuselah live 14 years after the flood.

Features of The Massoretic Data

The Massoretic Text has many features that relate to possible situations that I would expect to see occur. Looking at the generations before the flood, the Massoretic seems to rock back forth between small and large numbers for the age of each generation before the flood when their son was born. Except for Lamech and possibly Methuselah, the numbers either agree with the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch. Is this what we would expect?

We should be aware that the data in Genesis 5 and 11 do not say that each new son is the first son for that generation. We only know, for instance, that Seth was not Adam's first son.

In addition we know that Sin increased on the Earth before the flood until God had to destroy the Earth and start over with Noah's family. If we are looking for spiritual stress, how would we find it? What would we look for? We know what happened with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The surrounding people were wicked and it was not easy to find a mate. Could the same thing have happened before the flood? I think the same thing did happen before the flood. Either the first born was evil and not given the birthright or it took longer to find a wife in those times. Probably a combination of the two situations took place. The fact that the times are sporadically longer as the time of the flood approaches is important! It is exactly what might be expected if spiritual conditions on the world were getting worse.

After the flood we see a rapid rate of multiplication. Man found himself in a totally new world where conditions are nothing like what it was before the flood. Since conditions are not as good, would we expect to see the rapid rate that we have in the Massoretic? I think so. In any situation where there might be a lot of work to do there is often large families. We have seen it in farms for centuries. Some don't think that the Massoretic gives enough time for the large population that we see just a few hundred years later. However, there could have been a feeling or tradition that started with those after the flood.

In early America, everyone in the States thought that it was their "manifest destiny" to go west and possess all the new lands. There could have been a similar type of manifest destiny after the flood that would make people want to have as many children as possible. They knew they were placed on the Earth to repopulate the Earth. It was probably on everyone's mind. We know that in Abraham's time it was the hope of everyone that they would be the father of a great nation. God knew this and promised him that very thing he wanted. The wanting to be the father of nations could have been their manifest destiny.

If being the father of nations was on the minds of the people, we might expect to see extremely large families. Maybe even a little competition between families. These people initially lived for 400 to 600 years. We would not expect them to have a family, the next generation, and then stop the reproduction process. We would expect them to continue with new children until they could have no more. Abraham illustrated this activity with his example. Remember, he remarried and had a completely new family after he was one hundred years old.

We also know that it was traditional to have many wives. Did this custom result from the pressures of trying to repopulate the Earth. Did they want to ensure that they would be the father of a great nation? Jacob's family illustrates how having many wives can greatly increase the size of the family. Especially effective in increasing the rate of growth is the jealousy of the wives within the family. Each want their special time with the master of the house.

Some feel that the time indicated in the Massoretic text is too short to develop a large human population for the world. However, that is just not the case. These people were capable of having a much longer reproductive period in their lives and that could have resulted in extremely large families. The human world population could have exploded over night considering the human potential for reproduction at that time.

Features of The Septuagint Data

We see almost none of the features we saw in the Massoretic Text. There is no evidence of spiritual stress in either the time just before the flood or in Abraham's time. Nor do we see the accelerated growth following the flood. Instead what we see is a steady progression of generations (Noah is the exception) with little difference in their ages when they had their son.

The striking aspect about the age of the generations at their son's birth is that they are so similar. What makes them so much alike? Is biology telling each generation to start acting at approximately the same time (130 to 135 years old)? These numbers are similar in spite of the change in their life span. There doesn't seem to be any biological reason for the data given.

On the other hand, the Septuagint data is 100 years higher than the Massoretic data. The Massoretic data indicates a range of 29 to 35 years. From what we know of biological urges, it makes sense to have the ages being very similar in the 29 to 35 year range. The 130 to 135 year range found in the Septuagint (as well as the Samaritan Pentateuch) does not make sense biologically. None of the variability found in the rest of the Septuagint chart or in any part of the Massoretic chart is found in the ages of the Fathers on their son's birth date after the flood.

There are also elements in the story of Abraham that give further credence to the Massoretic data. By the time Abraham and his wife were around 100 years old, he was stated as being stricken with age, yet he was only middle aged. Yet if we look at the Septuagint data we see that there is no one who had their son as early as their 100 year birthday. Abraham is just doing it early. Somehow things don't seem right. The story doesn't fit the Septuagint data.

On looking at the Massoretic Text we see massive changes in the outcome of life spans of the generations just before Abraham. What did Abraham think of this rapid change? Did it affect his idea as to how long he would live? We must understand that man's expectancy of living for a long time was decreasing very rapidly. The reality was that Abraham and Isaac really had no idea how long they would live. By the time they were middle aged, they were already calling themselves as being stricken with age. They saw that each generation was shorter than the previous generation and they had now idea how much shorter they would live than their parents. They surmised that they were about to die.

Also according to the Massoretic Text, Abraham was indeed having his son late. Except for Terah, his father, his son was 60 or so years late. We understand that Terah had his first son when he was 70 years old. Of course a very important problem in having his son was that fact that his wife no longer was going through her periods.

The ages of the generations before the flood, when their son was born are also suspect. Many of the numbers again seem very similar. It might be harder to predict how fast society and biology will allow them to get married and have children when their expected lifetime is nearly 1000 years. However, many of the numbers are again 100 years off from what the Massoretic indicates.

The data itself seems to suggest that the numbers in the Septuagint must have been doctored. Furthermore it seems that everything was done to increase the length of time of the chronology. Even an extra generation was conceivably added to the list.

Features of The Samaritan Pentateuch Data

There are many similarities between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. So much of the same arguments can probably be made against the Samaritan Pentateuch as were made against the Septuagint. However one important difference is found in the Samaritan Pentateuch.

The ages of the generations when their Sons were born are strikingly opposite to what are expected. Why are the people before the flood be having their son in their 60s? Yet we find those after the flood having their son in their 130s. Is this what we would expect?

It doesn't seem right that those living after the flood, living for 200 years or more, should not live to see their grandson or great grandson. We cannot conclusively say one way or another; However, I think there is reason to suspect the data in the Samaritan Pentateuch as being doctored.

The rate of change in life spans after the flood

Now for the interesting "stuff". The Bible indicates a dramatic change of life-span after the flood. Man changed from 930 years on average to maybe 120 and later, maybe 75 years. If such a great change in human life-span occurred, how would we expect the change to occur?

Some may think that the decrease of life span should perhaps be linear according to the blue line C. However, none of the manuscripts show the change in life span to be linear (a straight line). Instead, both the Massoretic and the Samaritan Pentateuch follow a curve that turns sharper than even a power curve. This curve (red) is labeled A on the graph. The Septuagint follows the same curve except that it has a flat spot in the middle of the curve. It follows line B, then before and after the yellow line (line B) it follows the remainder of the red line (line A).

In the Biological world, is there any indication that might suggest that a curve such as a power curve might be a more realistic portrayal of a change rather than a straight line?

The answer is yes. There are many examples that involve changes of equilibriums. When differences are great, there is a large movement toward equilibrium. As equilibrium is approached movement slows down thus giving a non-linear movement toward equilibrium.


We can see this non-linear movement in the graphic to the right. Initially the difference in water level is the greatest. So there is the greatest in unequal forces pushing the water through the membrane. As the differences in the water levels decreases, the difference in forces also decreases. So the net movement of the water slows down. As equilibrium is reached the net flow of water approaches zero net flow.

This phenomenon occurs in all sorts of ways. For instance, If there is a population of animals in a stable environment, we might expect the numbers to be stable. However what would happen if conditions suddenly change. We would expect the same pattern we saw in the membrane example above. The new conditions could make the numbers in the population unstable. If the new conditions meant more hardships for the population then we might expect to see a new equilibrium set up; a new balance of numbers for the population. Initially the change would be quite dramatic. However as the new equilibrium is approached, the net rate of loss for the population would approach zero.

Could we expect the same thing to occur to man after the flood? Before the flood, man lived on average 930 years. What if conditions were suddenly different in his surroundings? Or what if man's genetics suddenly started to change. Maybe a host of new viruses started contaminating the human population causing large scale destruction of genetic systems. Would their life-span suddenly change to the new equilibrium? Or, would it take some time for the new equilibrium to be reached? Would the change be a linear (straight line) process or would we expect a curve like we saw in the above examples?

If Biology is consistent, we would most likely expect a change in the life-span of man to the new lower levels. Also, we would expect the change to be experienced in a curved process. Rapidly at first, but as the new level is reach, the rate of change becomes less and less.

This kind of change, the change we saw in the water levels of the membrane experiment, the change in population size of animals when new conditions suddenly appear, is the same equilibrium changing phenomena we see in the recorded ages of man right after the flood. All three of the manuscripts indicate this phenomena. They all have a succession of ages that more or less speak of some sort of a curve. All three manuscripts have rapid rates of life-span loss directly after the flood. As time goes on, the rate of loss becomes less and less.

All of the manuscripts are not completely consistent, However! The Septuagint shows an interesting curve. It more or less starts and ends with the same curve as found in the Massoretic and the Samaritan Pentateuch; However, the curve has a flat spot in the middle which follows the Yellow line B in the graph. If Biology does indeed dictate that the change in life-span be done in a curved fashion rather than a linear fashion, than we might suspect that the Septuagint has been doctored by someone who is not aware of how Biology might work or how changes usually take place. It looks like someone added time (also added an extra generation) between the time of Noah's son, Shem and Abraham. In addition, whoever did it, they made the life-spans decrease in a linear fashion which doesn't even fit it's own text. A portion of the curve is a curve but the middle portion is linear.

To determine the possibility that the Septuagint has been doctored, I decided to do a statistical analysis.

Look at the Curve fitting analysis charts. There are two series of charts. I chose to do curve fitting analysis of the data against three different curves; Logarithmic Curves, Exponential curves, and power curves. I also do a linear Regression for comparison. On all four I do a value of Coefficients determination as the analysis on all four curves and lines. Values of Coefficients of determination will lie between 0 and 1 and will indicate how closely the equation fits the experimental data. The closer the number is to 1, the better the fit.

One set of charts analyses the data from Noah to Joshua (generation 10 through 27). All three of the manuscripts have higher Coefficients of determination for any of the curved lines over a simple linear regression. Especially is the Power Curve Coefficient of determination high. Both the Massoretic and the Samaritan texts have the greatest difference in Coefficient of determinations.


Coefficient of Determination
(Generation 10 through 27)
Hi HSamaritan PentateuchH HMassoretic TextH HSeptuagint TextH
Linear Regression .667 .674 .832
HLogarithmic Curve FitH .769 .773 .895
Exponential Curve Fit .869 .866 .958
Power Curve Fit .930 .924 .957
Triple Power Curve Fit .959 .950 .911

Looking at the numbers, it can be seen that both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Massoretic Text are very similar. The Samaritan Pentateuch has just slightly better figures. The power curve fit and exponential curve fits of the Samaritan text are slightly higher than the Massoretic text. This difference comes from a single data point. In the Massoretic text Eber lived 646 years, in the Samaritan text, Eber lived only 404 years. All the statistical differences you see between these two texts result from the different ages of Eber. The Eber data point allows the Samaritan data to fit the power curve more accurately and it allows the Massoretic text to better fit the linear regression. Basically the two texts are identical.

The Septuagint text is very different. You can see that all the curves and the linear regression fit the data very well. The reason why the linear regression fits the Septuagint is that the data has a flat spot in the middle.

An interesting feature we see is that the Septuagint has higher Coefficient numbers that the other two texts. The reason for this is that the Samaritan and Massoretic text contains data that actually curves more sharper than even the power curve equation allows. The Septuagint text has an extra generation which serves to flatten the curve thus creating better numbers for a power curve.

Presently I am working to get a new stronger curve that would fit the Massoretic and Samaritan text better. Once this curve is found, than the real statistical difference between the Septuagint and the other two (the Massoretic and Samaritan text) will become more apparent.

I have been having trouble finding this new stronger curve. An interesting question might be asked: Why does the Genesis data produce a stronger curve than even a power curve, which is usually the strongest curving line we generally have in statistics?

I personally believe that there could have been a multitude of factors (possibly all genetic) which serve to add or even multiply their effect. Thus the resulting curve could have indeed been stronger than a power curve. If there are any ideas out there who has seen my data on these web pages, please make contact with me.

Another problem with the data is the random scatter found in the data. We probably will never have a sufficient number of data points to actually make a statement concerning a statistical difference between the different sets of Biblical data.

Coefficient of Determination
(Generation 11 through 19)
Hi HSamaritan PentateuchH HMassoretic TextH HSeptuagint TextH
Linear Regression .846 .827 .929
HLogarithmic Curve FitH .886 .859 .919
Exponential Curve Fit .870 .849 .901
Power Curve Fit .891 .865 .865
Triple Power Curve Fit .882 .855 .802

The second set of charts analyses the data from Shem to Terah (generation 11 through 19). The first set of data wasn't able to distinguish very well between the Septuagint and the Massoretic since both are essentially curved sets of data. The Septuagint is flatter in the middle but when looking at the whole set of data, it is still more or less a curved line.

I decided to look at only the portion that is flat in the Septuagint data. This same area is also the source of the major differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic Text. That is if we limit ourselves to their life-spans only. If this area only is analyzed, then it might be easier to distinguish between the two sets of data.

Since we are only looking at a small portion of the data, the results from the scatter have become even more noticeable. All results for the power curve are under .900. However we can now distinguish between the data of the Massoretic and the Septuagint texts. The Septuagint text best fits the linear Regression while both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Massoretic Text best fit the Power curve.

We basically have the same problems with this new data as we had with the earlier data. I will be doing further research with this data and other data that I have to make this presentation more complete. Look for future additions to this page.

Presently I am working to get a new stronger curve that would fit the Massoretic and Samaritan text better. Once this curve is found, than the real statistical difference between the Septuagint and the other two (the Massoretic and Samaritan text) will become more apparent.

I have been having trouble finding this new stronger curve. An interesting question might be asked: Why does the Genesis data produce a stronger curve than even a power curve, which is usually the strongest curving line we generally have in statistics?

I personally believe that there could have been a multitude of factors (possibly all genetic) which serve to add or even multiply their effect. Thus the resulting curve could have indeed been stronger than a power curve. If there are any ideas out there who has seen my data on these web pages, please make contact with me.


why I became a scientist who is a creationist

For
Other
Topics
--------->
Click
on Icon
Links

Mike's Origins Resources: A PhD Creationist's view of science, origins, and the future hope of the human race; by looking at Creation Science, Biblical Evidence, and Prophecy Molecular History Research Center Genesis 5 & 11: A comparison of the early Genesis 5, 11 genealogies in the early Massoretic (Hebrew), Septuagint (LXX), and Samaritan Pentateuch Manuscripts.

why I became a scientist who is a creationist


What is new at this creation science and prophecy site?

Email criticisms and comments to Mike Brown brownm@creation-science-prophecy.com

Copyright 1998-2017 by Michael Brown all rights reserved
Officially posted September, 1998
last revised January 4, 2017