RE: bill's flood and acidic waters

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Mon, 3 Aug 1998 01:33:04 -0700

Vernon writes: My prime purpose is not to 'prove God' but to point to a remarkable series of phenomena that are foundin the opening verse of His book. If we can all agree that that is so we might then proceed to infer certain things from it. I trust we are not in a situation where certain observational data is labelled 'taboo' for no good reason. Wasn't this your complaint respecting YEC - viz that they wouldn't face up to what, in your opinion, was firm evidence that evolution had occurred?>>

The easy counter-argument(s) to this is that even if we agree upon these 'phenomena' they need to be shown to be 1) not random 2) not placed there by those who wrote down the Bible. The Numerical System you used has been in use for long long times and it would not be too surprising to have the authors use such methods.

>...and I don't see that stated anywhere in Scripture.

In the context of an offer of wisdom to the researcher, we read of the
numbering of a name in Rev.13:17,18; 15:2; and are informed that the
number of the beast is 666 (=18x37). Remarkably, the whole of the Bible
in the original tongues (principally Hebrew and Greek) may be fairly
represented as a set of numbers. Don't you find this interesting?

Not at all, it merely shows how numerology was commonly used by Hebrews and Greeks. That this happens in the Bible is therefor no real surprise.

> ...since it takes the wise to understand the message...

Not so. The evidence is largely, and essentially, geometrical.Most people are capable of understanding the symmetrical pictures arising from Gen.1:1. I suggest that a courtroom jury would have little
difficulty in 'getting the message'. >>

Is the existance of miracles now decided in the court rooms and is this the appropriate place for such decisions ? I'd suggest not.

> ...I would say that it is unlikely that God would choose this medium >for communication.

Vernon: Clearly, none of us know the mind of God. We glibly state that His ways and thoughts are far and away beyond ours (another mantra?) - and that must be true.. How then can you be so sure that He wouldn't do such a thing? On what basis are you suggesting that the possibility shouldn't
even be considered? >>

Since as you say we do not know the mind of God, would it not be a bit presumptious to refer to Genesis's 'miracle' as such ?

> ...it might be that they (the translators of the King James' Bible) >conspired to have this coincidence by careful writing.

With respect, I was not referring to any specific translation; the phenomena exist in the original Hebrew text - not in the translation. The problem that must be grasped is that the Hebrew words predated their interpretation as numbers by many centuries!>>

Did it ? When was the Hebrew text written and when did the numerology get introduced to the Hebrews ? I would love to see some actual references since the data I have run across appears to suggest that it was common use since the onset of written language.

So a first step would be to provide some background to your assertions about numerology and the Hebrew language.