Vernon:
Responding to your post (made a little after midnight last night).
>>The fact that you have provided answers to my questions of 20 April
strongly suggests that you are completely au fait with the evidence I
have amassed to support my claims. May I therefore ask you to elaborate
a little on each of your answers? I am interested to know how you can
possibly defend these opinions.>>
First of all -- they are opinions, not claims. No more.
You, OTOH, have made some strong claims, and have not, IMHO, defended them
very well. They are "strong, IMHO, because they are so unusual and unique.
They also go against the words of Jesus, I think, when he said "unless you
become as little children ... ." Your claims, whatever their merit, appeal
only to people with substantial mathemetical expertise. That fact alone
makes them, even if true, of marginal interest to most people, and of
apologetic appeal only to a few already convinced of the truth of
Christianity. A few, I would add, who are somewhat naive. IMHO of course.
I think I'll quit writing "IMHO" because it applies to almost all of the
issue. There is, I suspect, less than a 1% chance you are "on" to anything
here. That's about the same percentage I give my friends at ICR, BTW. Most
of your colleagues here would not give you even a 1%, but I'm a
particularly generous person when it comes to outrageous claims. As a SYSOP
on Compuserve's RELIGION forum these past five years, I've seen a bunch of
them. Sometimes, not often, one of them sparks an idea or two in my 68-year
old brain.
In response to your request, I will elaborate a little on my answers:
You wrote: "Would you not agree that the '37/91 matter' - augmented by
these remarkable 'coincidences' - speaks loudly of supernatural and
purposeful design? Do you believe meaningful biblical exegesis is possible
if these facts - together with their profound implications - are ignored?"
To which I replied "no" and "yes."
On question 1, the "37/91" matter, along with other "remarkable
coincidences" does not "speak" of anything supernatural at all. Others on
this list have pointed out to you why this is so. I see no way to improve
on their explanations.
On question 2, since I see no evidence the "facts" are divinely planted, I
see no reason to consider them in biblical exegesis, or in anything else.
To the extent any biblical exegesis is possible, these "facts" appear to
have no relevance.
I asked you if you thought the decimal system of counting was divinely
inspired. You did not answer that simple question, but you did write:
"Regarding your question to me: man was created with a simple counting
facility at the ends of his two arms. This would appear to be the main
reason why denary is the preferred choice of numbering system - and the
one intended by God."
If I deconstruct that somewhat vague answer, can I assert that you DO think
the decimal system is divinely inspired? That is the most reasonable
conclusion I can make to it. Can I ask you to give me a "yes" or "no"
answer though? If you answer "yes," I have another question or two. If you
answer "no," then I have a different set of questions.
You also wrote: "One further point: Is it your usual practice to ridicule
matters of fact with silly epithets like 'number jumbo'? I had hoped we
were all a little more mature on this list!"
I apologize for my incivility; I can see how you must have read it. I did
not mean, of course, to denigrate you, personally, of course. But in all
honesty, I stand by my opinion that your claims in this regard are not only
untenable, and nonsense, but, possibly, more dangerous to the Christian
faith of some people than those of my friends (yes - they are my friends)
at ICR. Now I know that last statement causes you grief, but I will not
have you suspecting that your claims, as made so far, are of any
significant effect. That is not to assert they could never have such an
effect -- but to do so you will simply have to find a way to better defend
them. A list of "coincidences" is not going to do that. You will have to
find a defense which, on the basis of either scripture or human reason,
perferably both, argues that such a list of coincidences is to seriously be
expected. You will also have to explain why scholars, up to the time of
Vernon Jenkins, somehow overlooked these arguments and failed to look for
the coincidences. You will also have to explain why, in the light of the
scripture I mentioned above, the issue is at all important. Others here can
probably add to this list.
Let me conclude with this, Vernon. Let me assume that ALL of your
coincidence data is 100% true. That is not enough. You have to tell me why
it is important for people to know this.
Example. I am pretty sure the following is true; if not, please, someone on
the list tell me why it is not true.
-----------------
There exists a constant of nature, "programmed" by the Creator into the
physical reality of this universe, one which is well known, measurable, and
capable of being calculated to any desired number of decimal places. The
constant is "pi."
There is also a number, call it "X," which can, in principle, be
calculated, though I'm fairly sure this has not (yet) been done. If you
look at the value of pi, starting with the Xth decimal place, and if you
assign A=01, B=02, ... , Z=26, the numbers which begin at that position
spell out EXACTLY the KJV of the NT.
Because pi is a non-repeating infinite decimal, the above is true, as a
matter of fact, there are an infinite number of Xs, but we will just look
at the first one.
Assume that I have determined the value of X and I point out the "amazing
coincidence" that the KJV of the NT follows it in the value of pi. In
principle, of course, I could do this. Would that prove anything?
I think not.
Neither do your coincidences, Vernon. That they are "interesting," I give
you. That they mean anything of importance at all, I do not. That the claim
can seriously mislead a person to place his faith in something other than
the Lord Jesus Christ -- well -- that does concern me.
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 24 2000 - 18:09:30 EDT