Re:The Other Bible Code

Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Sat, 25 Jul 1998 22:10:44 +0100

Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
> Now if you could have predicted the features. But instead you find 'features' by searching. I
am sure that similar features can be found elsewhere, if one just looks
and spends enough time
finding them. Nothing unique about that, other than the time needed to
do this. Look at for
instance the posting about Bill Gates and 666. Numerology can be 'used'
to 'prove' almost
anything.

Pim,

Thank you for writing again. To answer the points made here:
Doesn't science draw its strength from the making of observations?
Nothing wrong with that, surely! Predictions come later in the
validation of a theory.

With respect, you still seem to be ignoring the finer points of my
thesis. For example:
1) The core-features of the phenomena are found in the 7 words of the
first - and very meaningful - verse of a large book for which it is
claimed, "All...given by inspiration of God...profitable for
correction..." (2Tim 3:16). Clearly, this is not any old book! It is a
unique book!
2) The numbers came into being centuries after the words were first
written. This is a central fact that cannot reasonably be omitted from
our discussion.
3) These numbers - summed in unbroken sequences - create a structure of
coordinated geometries - mathematical absolutes; other combinations
result in eye-catching sums like 1998 (=3x666), 777, 888, and 999
(twice)!
4) There are symbolic features apposite to the subject matter of the
text. For example, the equilateral triangles suggest a Triune God -
Father, Son and Holy Spirit being Consubstantial, Co-eternal and
Co-equal. Again, the division of the 73rd triangle by the 37th
(representing 'and the earth') generating a trio of 666-as-triangle at
its vertices. This picture is highly suggestive of the subject matter of
Rev 13 (in which 666 occurs as a 'suface feature') - the earth
(including ourselves) being surrounded and menaced by the Dragon, the
Anti-Christ and the False Prophet.

In your second paragraph:
>
> Why is evolution bloody ? And is it not through His blood that we are saved ? Loveless ? I am
not sure either since it results in better survival. And give the
evidence, evolution did
happen, the question is through what mechanism(s).
>

A fight for survival would normally be attended by the shedding of
blood. 'Survival of the fittest' surely lies at the opposite end of the
scale from '...love thy neighbour as thyself'.

Vernon