Thank you for your erudite comments.
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/30/99 5:42:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> vernon.jenkins@virgin.net writes:
>
> << Concerning the Hebrew: an examination of a present-day Torah scroll
> reveals that my rendering of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is correct. >>
>
> Vernon,
>
> I agree that you have correctly rendered the spelling of the Hebrew words of
> Gen 1:1, 2 as they were spelled centuries after they were inspired. However,
> when they were inspired, the spelling was different. So, the numbers you have
> found in the later, changed spelling are not the same as the numbers you
> would have found if you were using the original inspired spelling. If the
> original inspired text had been English and said "In the bigynyng…" you would
> have a different sum for the words than if you used a later spelling like "In
> the beginning…"
>
> You are not using the original inspired text. All of your numbers are based
> upon a centuries later uninspired spelling; and that is why I say it came
> from your mind, not God's.
>
> That is as simple and direct as I can say it.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul S.
>
I think we have to view the phenomena as the final outcome of a process
which - for want of a better word - we may label 'evolutionary'! To
explain, let me quote from a piece I wrote some years ago:
"The proposition that the Creator would want to underwrite the truth of
a statement that He foresaw would one day be flatly denied or
watered-down by the majority of the world's intelligensia, seems
eminently reasonable. There can be little doubt that the authority of
the Bible as a whole ultimately rests upon the truth of its opening
verse. Taken at face value these are the received words of a Sovereign
Being for whom nothing is impossible; a God more than capable of
creating all things from nothing in six literal days some six thousand
years ago.
"To carry any weight with an establishment that is largely hostile to
His message, the principle of verification would need to satisfy at
least three important criteria, viz
(1) it would need to be universal in its scope, ie be completely
independent of language, of intellect, and of place;
(2) it would need to appeal strictly to self-evident truth and logical
argument, ie no step of faith would be required to grasp its import;
(3) it would need to be decisive, ie leave no room for doubt that the
Creator is its author.
"Clearly, only the language of number can fulfil these exacting
requirements. But how can the words of an ancient language lead to a
unique set of numbers? By what generally-acceptable method can this
first and crucial step be accomplished? By arranging that, at the
appointed time, Hebrew letters would function as numerals! And by what
means can such numbers acquire a generally-acknowledged significance?
Simply by taking a prominent and absolute number structure as basis, and
guiding the development of vocabulary, syntax, and semantics to achieve
coincidence with it!
"Whether or not we believe that God plays such an active role in the
affairs of mankind, we must squarely face the implications of the
evidence now available."
In this scenario - which, I believe, the facts substantiate - the valid
points you raise are, I suggest, easily accomodated.
Sincerely, and with kind regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm