RE: The Other Bible Code

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sun, 26 Jul 1998 05:36:28 -0700

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.>>

Vernon:
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.>>

So where are the predictions ?

Vernon:
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!>>

It surely is as unique as any other book. THese 'phenonema' show up in many other books. That's where the problem lies, you have failed to show that these phenomena are 1) not random 2) not placed there on purpose by the writers 3) not interpreted in a biased manner.

Vernon:
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)!

Coincidence ? After all similar structures can be found in other samples. You will have to show that this is indeed 'unique'.

Vernon:
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

DOes it ? Was this predicted or was this 'interpreted' after the fact ?

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).
>

Vernon:
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'.>>

Not at all. It appears you are confused what evolution and 'surivival of the fittest' actually means/