John:
Thanks for your conciliatory reply! Whilst I was rather taken aback by
your choice of subject title ('number jumbo' being more in the nature of
a circus ringmaster's worry concerning his missing elephants!), it is
right that we now put that matter behind us and focus instead on the
real substance of your email. For ease of reference I will present my
comments in numbered paragraphs.
1) Let me first clarify the matter of the 'audience' to whom these
matters are principally addressed: it is to the intelligentsia of this
world - those whose thoughts and actions are ostensibly guided by
reason; it is among such that evangelising atheism and apostasy are to
be found; it is among such that a restoration of the fear of God is
urgently required! That is why I consider it important that these facts
are made more widely known.
2) You have quoted the Lord's words, "unless you become as little
children...". I suggest these are particularly relevant in the context
of believing what the Bible says - which is what my efforts are all
about - rather than 'wresting' the scriptures (2Pet.3:16) to satisfy the
requirements of popular dogma!
3) You will have noted that my principal claims rest on the observed
high-profiles of 37 and 91 as numbers per se - as they are presented
under the heading 'The Lamp' at the first URL below. These same numbers
are involved in the triangular number structures found in the Bible's
first eight Hebrew words (ie Gn.1:1 and following word) - and the first,
37, in each component of the Lord's Name also. Yet, like George
(Andrews) before you (16 April), you state that 'others on this list'
have made nonsense of these claims. This charge is completely without
substance! If you still disagree, then please acquaint me with the
relevant statements.
4) You seem to make light of the value of 'coincidence' in furthering
the cause of truth. I suggest that one's 'tolerance to coincidence' is
never boundless. On the contrary, we tend to quickly see through a
situation which, whilst initially appearing to be genuinely
coincidental, ultimately turns out to be a series of contrived events.
For example, if I observe the same stranger loitering around my property
on a number of occasions, I contact the police sooner rather than later.
5) A study of the circumstances and context in which the biblical
coincidences are found leaves little room for any conclusion other than
that they must be of supernatural origin. I have already elaborated on
the role of Rv.13:18 in pointing to these phenomena in my reply to
George (19 April).
6) You ask why nobody has seen these coincidences before. Will you also
ask why Darwin was the first to formulate a theory of evolution by
natural selection?!
7) In respect of the significance of the denary system: the fact that -
'created in the image of God' - we find ourselves with 10 digits on our
two hands suggests that it is 'divinely-inspired' - if you want to put
it that way. But there are other good reasons for believing that ten is
'tailor-made' for this role; for example, my page, 'Exceptional
Measures', carries convincing documentary evidence of the fact.
8) You have raised an interesting question with respect to the digits of
pi! However, if I may correct your scenario somewhat: we would need to
express pi in the 'radix = 26' system so that the individual digits
would then represent one of the 26 alphabetic characters - not
forgetting to cater for zero. I think the valid idea of finding an
infinite number of starting points (X) for the biblical text (and why
not include the OT also?!) gives us a whole new appreciation of what we
understand by 'infinity'!
Thank you for that! Of course, such occurrences would no longer be
'coincidences', but 'expectations'! But how this relates to my findings,
I have no idea. Can you throw some light on what you had in mind?
9) Finally, John, I see no reason to believe that the phenomena I am
attempting to publicise - when properly studied, of course! - can take
one's attention away from the Lord Jesus Christ, for the role they play
is entirely supportive. In my view, they bring him much honour, glory
and praise, and provide us with precious faith-building insights into
God's character, providence and sovereignty.
Regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
John Burgeson wrote:
>
> 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 : Wed Apr 26 2000 - 19:12:37 EDT