Supernatural ID ? (was Numerology)

From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Mon Oct 30 2000 - 18:09:42 EST

  • Next message: Tim Ikeda: "Re: Evolvability of new functions"

    To John and the Forum:

    As one who takes 'this stuff' very seriously indeed I am disappointed
    that you appear to have lost interest in pursuing the questions raised
    by these intriguing scriptural phenomena!

    Let's first consider the 'Shakespeare/Psalm 46' matter. The article by
    Bishop Hodson (http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Psalm46.htm)
    drew a response from a professor of classics here in Cardiff, UK. I
    quote his letter to the editor of The Times (25 April 1976):

    Sir,

    The Shakespeare cryptogram in Psalm 46 of the Authorized Version is even
    more remarkable than Bishop Hodson allows, for both the changes from the
    Bishops' Bible in Verse 10 were inevitably dictated by the closer
    adherence of the AV to the 'original tongues'. The word 'then' was bound
    to be omitted as having no equivalent in the Hebrew text, and the
    substitution of 'God' for 'the Lord' follows the consistent practice of
    the AV to use 'God' for elohim and 'the Lord' for the tetragrammaton.

    If, then, the 46/46 count was thus predestined, only one conclusion
    seems possible: the whole thing is an example of divine providence,
    foreseeing not only Shakespeare's birth in 1564 but also the completion
    of Psalm 46 in the Authorized Version in time for his 46th birthday.
    (But why was not 'Selah' allowed to count, to put the 46/46 beyond
    doubt, when 'asunder' for 'in sunder' in Verse 9 would have done the
    trick ?)

    Yours etc.
    (Professor) L.A.Moritz

    Then, with regard to the shortest of the Psalms (117) being also the
    central chapter of the Bible: can I ask whether those on this list who
    are expert in the history of Old and New Testament Canon how they would
    respond to my suggestion that this interesting coincidence is likely to
    be neither fortuitous nor something that could possibly be contrived by
    man ?

    Many people refer (disparagingly) to such realities as 'numerology' -
    the implication being that instances of this kind are hardly worthy of
    serious consideration. However, as followers of Christ, we are also
    'lovers of truth' (Jn.18:37). It follows that for the Christian no
    manifestations of self-evident truth can be regarded as 'out of bounds'
    - for how are we to learn of Him if our minds are closed ?

    Vernon

    Vernon Jenkins MSc
    [musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
    Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]

    http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
    http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm

     John Burgeson wrote:
    >
    > Thanks to George, Vernon and David for comments.
    >
    > To Lee -- I don't know what Bible version was being referred to. I was
    > unaware that there were different verse markings between translations
    > (except that the end of Mark is in some versions and not in others).
    >
    > It is amazing how seriously some folks take this stuff.
    >
    > Burgy



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 18:25:53 EST