Let me first assure you that I am indeed in earnest: my comment was
neither 'ad hoc' nor 'irrelevant'. Rather than first absorbing the
broader picture, you seem intent on focussing on just one of many
interesting details associated with the Bible's opening verse -
completely ignoring the rest!
Having spent many years researching these matters, and convinced they
can only be of supernatural origin, I firmly believe they are intended
to accomplish some serious purpose in our day. Your objections
concerning word order, therefore - while appearing to be reasonable -
are, on this understanding, irrelevant.
As I am attempting to point out on these lists, the time for debating
whether or not there is a God is over. He has revealed His Presence and
Sovereignty in terms that all but the wilfully ignorant may understand,
viz a body of empirical evidence - closely integrated with God's word -
that is completely free from evolutionary bias!
Dave, may I suggest that you examine the complete crop of 'coincidences'
associated with Genesis 1:1 and Creator's Name. You may then agree that
comments made in my last posting makes sense.
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>
> You wrote:
>
> But has it not occurred to you that
> the English translations of these Hebrew words are undoubtedly the most
> widely read of all. I suggest this fact, in itself, might well be
> interpreted as evidence of an Omniscient and Omipotent Creator
> specifically targeting generations that appear to have completely lost
> touch with Him!
>
> This leaves me even more bothered, for it is so patently ad hoc and
> irrelevant that I find it hard to accept that you sent it. Is someone
> falsely using your name? I have heard that there is that kind of
> shenanigans going on.
>
> But if you are in earnest, why should we abandon the Hebrew word order
> for one that only became "relevant" millennia later? Would it not be
> better to go with the Vulgate, which dominated a wider part of
> Christendom from the time of Jerome until this century? It has the same
> word order, though with different words, as the Hebrew: "in principio
> creavit Deus caelum et terram." Or was Jerome outside the control of the
> omnipotent and omniscient Lord? 15 centuries less than 3? Why disdain the
> more ancient LXX? But I return to my original questions: is not any word
> order other than the Hebrew totally irrelevant? Do not 1+2 or 1+2+3 have
> numerical precedence over 1+3 and 2+4+5?
>
> Dave