Vernon:
>>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! ...>>
If you can persuade the "intelligentsia" with this claim, more power to
you.
I suspect, however, that the claim will appeal more to those who have just
enough
math knowledge to be taken in by it. But this assumes, as I do, that the
claim
is without merit; if it has merit, something which I cannot agree, then
whoever
is impressed by it is the better off. If it does not have merit, however,
then
the person impressed by it is hurt. Like those of my friends who have been
impressed by the scientific claims of ICR, for instance. I hold that they
have been hurt. Not only because they get laughed at when they tout the ICR
claims, but because they are, in a sense, worshipping an incomplete god.
IMHO, of course.
It is not really in being "impressed by facts" that seems to make any real
difference in a person's life. The Grand Inquisitor believed, but his
conduct was hardly one we would urge anyone to follow. I encounter all too
many "Christians" on the Compuserve forums who know a lot of facts, yet do
not exhibit a behaviour which indicates those facts are any more than head
knowledge. So I suspect that a member of your "target audience" might well
find himself in awe of your "facts" yet hardly think them of any importance
in considering the claims of Christ. Claims, I might add, which do not seem
to ask people to accept any strange numerics.
>>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!>>
I am from a somewhat liberal tradition, Vernon, holding that while the
scriptures are certainly of primary importance "in matters of faith and
practice" they are of little help in solving most of the problems of
modern-day life. So I don't know what you refer to when you say "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.>>
I do not keep "back issues" of the LISTSERV. I remember rebuttals to your
claims which appeared quite reasonable to me at the time. Rebuttals, I
might add, by at least one or two of the LISTSERV members I have found in
the past to be reliable.
Vernon -- I am, on an ongoing basis, corresponding with a friend of mine
who claims the KJV of scripture is inspired (and all other versions are
seriously flawed) and others who make the same claim, very seriously, that
if one disputes the YEC claims (an earth less than 10,000 years old and a
global flood) then one is, at best, a "carnal Christian," one who is really
out on the fringe. Now along you come with yet another strange claim. The
arguments have a lot in common. "Ad hoc" explanations, hidden assumptions,
etc. Sometimes it is interesting to try to sort these out. For most people,
I suspect the game is not worth it.
>>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.>>
I understand that your claim asserts to have found a series of
coincidences.
But, as I said before, to assert that these coincidences have any meaning,
you have to set a ground of assumptions. I have not seen you do this.
>>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).>>
That, of course, is part & parcel of your claim. I assume you hold to the
doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Is this correct?
>>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?! >>
That's a totally non-responsive answer, of course. The math you depend on
has been known for centuries. I'll not ask that question again. But others
may do so.
>>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. >>
I note that you did not answer my question. That kind of response is seen
regularly on the Compuserve forums, by the way. Since I asked you twice,
and you did not respond either time, I don't see any reason to repeat the
question. Were you on a witness stand I could, of course, ask the judge to
direct your answer.
>>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'!>>
It is an interesting scenario, isn't it. Not only the whole KJV of the NT
is there, but it is there an infinite number of times. It is also there
with John 3:16 rewritten -- but that leads into all sorts of useless
speculations. If X marks one point where it starts and Y marks another
point, it is even true that tne result of Y/X is a multiple of 37! Egad!
>>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. >>
And on that point, Vernon, we must simply agree to disagree. Phillip
Johnson has said that he expects to find "God's fingerprints" all over the
place. You, I suspect, would agree, and assert that your findings are some
of those fingerprints. Thomas had to see -- Jesus said "Blessed are those
who do not see, and believe." From the viewpoint of one who is both a
Christian and a skeptic, if I were to become quite convinced that your
claim had merit, that it was, indeed, true, I would seriously have to
question whether I could hold that belief and, at the same time, be a
Christian. I would see in the claim an evidence of a superior intelligence,
of course; I would also have to question whether that superior intelligence
had the attributes of "God," or, more likely, "E.T."
I wish you well. But not your claim.
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 28 2000 - 17:11:10 EDT