Dave:
My research is based upon what I consider to be the eminently reasonable
proposition that the Creator would want to underwrite the truth of the
Book he had bequeathed to man because he foresaw that his testimony
would, one day, be flatly denied, or watered down, by the majority of
the world's intelligentsia. Am I really to understand that you deny the
very possibility? If so, I would be interested to hear your reasons. You
see, the fact that both Jew and Greek, at one time, used letters as
numerals certainly establishes a suitable context for a self-validating
text, and the phenomena I am alluding to establish the fact!
Your reaction to these matters is instructive. By labelling them
'numerology' - 'coprolitic', even! - you are, in effect, saying that,
for you, there exist two categories of truth: the one which is
acceptable and good (ie that fits in with your conception of reality!),
and the other - equally objective - which is beneath contempt (because
it seriously disturbs your preconceived notions about God - and,
particularly, how he should behave!).
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:28:35 +0100 Vernon Jenkins
> <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
> > For the particular attention of George and Dave:
> >
> > I gather from your adverse remarks that neither of you has taken the
> > trouble to check the material I have put on line. Is it that you
> > fear
> > these facts will challenge your deeply-held views?
> >
> > As Christians, you will be aware, of course, that nothing we read in
> > the
> > Book of Revelation may be lightly ignored (Rv.22:19). How then do
> > you
> > regard Rv.13:18? Is this a bit of 'fun', George? - or a bit of
> > 'nonsense', Dave? For your information, this bit of 'numerology' (as
> > you
> > would, no doubt, call it!) specifies the investigations in which I
> > am
> > engaged. I make this point in my new page.
> >
> > Rather than barrack from the sidelines, why don't you both get to
> > grips
> > with the empirical evidence upon which my claims are founded - and
> > attempt to 'shoot me down' by logical argument!
> >
> > Vernon
> >
> The canonical scriptures I take seriously, but, in the welter of
> interpretations of those scriptures, there are some interpretations that
> I cannot take seriously. Indeed, some are contradictory of others, making
> them impossible to be held simultaneously. As to your challenge, I have
> in the past taken note of various numerological views, from those
> springing from the Kabala on to quite recent examples. Having reached a
> rational analysis thereof, I need not look into further examples of the
> same genre. While once my studies of numerology were fertilizing, I now
> see no need for coprophagy.
>
> Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 10 2000 - 18:16:48 EDT