Hi George:
Thank you for writing! I assume from one of your later remarks that this
communication was not intended to be private, but meant for the whole
list; I therefore respond accordingly.
Now what immediately troubles me with your suggestion that we ignore
these 'patterns associated with the relational beauty of numbers' as
they occur in Rev.13:18, the Bible's first eight Hebrew words and the
Greek form of the Lord's Name, and get on with some real theology(!), is
this: what if I am correct in believing such remarkable coincidences to
be 'of the Lord'? (which, from the quotation you have provided, appears
to be what Gordon also believes - and, surely, a possibility that no
Christian worthy of the name could justify rejecting out of hand!) -
specifically intended by him to accomplish some significant purpose in
our day? - how can it be wise that we promptly label the matter
'numerology' and thereafter avoid it like the plague!? Doesn't it bother
you that for naturally curious creatures like ourselves to behave thus
is somewhat 'out of character'?
In a number of my writings I have referred to 'the standing miracle of
Genesis 1:1', and have presented copious evidence to back up the claim.
How can the apprehension of a miracle be detrimental to Christian
witness in any context - whether it be academy or other? When one does
occur - as in this case - how can it fail to be faith-building and
faith-strengthening?
George, while I very much appreciate your contribution, I would urge you
to examine the evidence I have provided; it is 'God-honouring' and leads
to a better understanding of his supreme sovereignty and providence.
Yours, in Christ,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
George Andrews wrote:
>
> Hi Vernon;
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > 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!
>
> >
> > Vernon
> >
>
> To "... deny the very possibility..." is not the issue; for in the imaginations
> of the heart - well to use a biblical phrase - "...all things are possible".
> The issue is the actuality that what you are doing is - by definition -
> numerology. Your claim that the Hebrew and Greek letter = number phenomena,
> coupled with elementary number theory is proof for the divinity and validity of
> scriptural utterance - it is this testable claim that is being rejected. It is
> rejected at all levels of inquiry - not the least of which is theological.
>
> Vernon, numerology is simply void of persuasive force. Not only do we not need
> it for apologetical endeavors, it is in fact detrimental to christian witness
> in the academy. As Gordon has politely and repeatedly shown, the patterns you
> see are simply patterns associated with the relational beauty of numbers; this
> is all and this is enough.
>
> I include Gordon's Jan. 6th response below for those new to the list:
>
> (quote)
>
> Vernon,
>
> I don't need numerical arguments to be convinced that Gen. 1:1 is God's
> word. I already believe that, and I also believe that whatever numerical
> features you find in that verse were not unplanned by God. The question
> that I raise is whether or not I can honestly use your numerical arguments
> to convince an unbeliever of this.
>
> If I imagine myself in the shoes of an unbeliever, I can think of a number
> of objections that I would raise. Others have already mentioned some of
> these such as your use of conveniently chosen human units of measurement,
> one case of an approximation, and features that automatically follow from
> other features. You, of course, list only those numerical features that
> work. There are many others that would seem just as remarkable but that
> are not found here.
>
> What might really get the skeptic's attention would be if you found a
> numerical test, a pattern that you could predict for all of Scripture,
> that would clearly distinguish Scripture from non-scripture. It wouldn't be
> confined to just the first verse of the Bible. Furthermore, if you could
> do that, you would have a great tool for the interesting task of
> recovering the exact original text. For example, you might solve the
> problem of figuring out what was the original version of the lists in Ezra
> 2 and Nehemiah 7.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
> (end quote)
>
> These objections are not prejudiced by liberal bias or subjective versions of
> truth as you claim, they really are reasonably sound and conclusive. We need to
> press on.
>
> God Bless
>
> George A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 11 2000 - 18:15:47 EDT