Still stymied!? (was 'Another heresy')

Michael,

(1) You write: "I am afraid it is you, and you alone, who force their own
meaning onto Scripture, and in a more bizarre way than John Mackay!"

I simply take the Scriptures at face value. What you consistently refuse to
do is to admit that people in your position have a problem: namely, that of
explaining the presence of the numero-geometrical phenomena in the Bible's
opening Hebrew words. As a scientist you clearly lack that _spirit of
inquiry_ which one normally associates with the office - and, of course, you
are not alone in this forum. Why is this? Is it a matter of superstition? -
surely not! But how, then, would you explain it? After all, the data are
real - and no figment of my imagination - and they cannot reasonably be
ascribed to chance or human invention. It is therefore entirely logical to
infer that they have been devised and strategically positioned for a
purpose. In my view, that purpose is reasonably obvious, viz the timely
restoration of Scriptural Authority. Whilst I appreciate you may disagree
with my assessment, for your own self-respect IMO you must break the
silence, and advance a reasonable explanation of your own.

(2) You write: "If Gen 1vs1 is numerical as you claim that does not make it
a miracle at all."

Why not test the matter for yourself? No need to take my word for it. The
facts (as they are currently known) appear in the pages of my website, and
elsewhere.

Again, you write: "May I ask you if you disregard Jesus Christ in favour of
this numerical watermark. If it is so central to our faith how can I as a
minister teach it to my congregation?"

As I've pointed out on a previous occasion, these are not matters to be
preached from the pulpit; they cannot supplant - and never were intended to
supplant - the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In complementing
and undergirding the J-C Scriptures they have been graciously provided to
reach and to teach the intelligentsia of this world - i.e. those _capable_
of assessing the unique significance of these things, and getting the
message - much as SETI enthusiasts would infer on receiving an interesting
signal from the depths of space.

(3) "All evangelicals myself included recognise the Bible as a unique body
of _divine revelation_."

But if _divine_ revelation, why do you insist on _interpreting_ it? Is God
incapable of making things clear to us? As a case in point, consider my
exchanges with Dick Fischer some time ago. When I pointed out that birds
(assumed to have dinosaur ancestry) were created on 'day 5' he suggested
(quite seriously) that this was a scriptural error. What would your view be
concerning this particular matter?

(4) "As for evolution you have never given one reason why it is wrong and
have ignored my requests to explain why geological time is wrong."

I consider them to be wrong because nowhere in the Scriptures are we given
any clear reason to believe them to be true; rather, the opposite.

(5) "How come you are RIGHT and everyone else over the last 2000 years has
been wrong?"

Simply because the phenomena to which I refer - though assuming their
present form when the Jews introduced alphabetic numeration circa 200 BC -
have, nevertheless, remained undetected until now.

(6) "Finally I have never come across such a bizarre interpretation of
Scripture as yours and regard it as not even Christian and extremely
damaging to the Gospel."

In view of what I have said above perhaps you would explain why you believe
it _damages_ rather than _enhances_ the Gospel.

To conclude: it is clear to me that this negative reaction to what, clearly,
are matters of fact (together with their reasonable inferences) must be of
great interest to a psychologist. That is why I have included Louise
Freeman in my list of addressees. It seems to me that what we have here is
worthy of a number of PhD projects. What do you think, Louise?

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

PS In the Spirit of the Season, I follow JB's lead in wishing you all a
Happy Christmas and New Year!

V

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>;
"Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Another heresy

> Vernon
>
> I note you value robust argument and plain speaking. I am not inclined to
> use the former in this case and what I write is from very serious concern
> at your attitudes.
>
> 1. Those who, like me, do not see the divine watermark in Genesis One, do
> not insist on reading our own meaning into Scripture. All who do not see
> this watermark follow recognisable readings on scripture whether Glenn's
> or George's to give two rather different approaches. Neither are lone
> rangers in biblical interpretation. Nor am I and my interpretation as
> with others on this list fall in the consensus of conservative
> interpretation.
> I am afraid it is you, and you alone, who force their own meaning onto
> Scripture, and in a more bizarre way than John Mackay!
>
> 2. If Gen 1vs1 is numerical as you claim that does not make it a miracle
> at all. It is difficult to see any value in it whatsoever.
> I probably speak for most Christians on this list and see that our faith
> is based on Jesus Christ crucified and risen and not some recently
> discovered numbers in Genesis.
> May I ask you if you disregard Jesus Christ in favour of this numerical
> watermark.
> If it is so central to our faith how can I as a minister teach it to my
> congregation?
>
> 3. All evangelicals myself included recognise the Bible as a unique body
> of
>> _divine revelation_
>
> 4 As for evolution you have never given one reason why it is wrong and
> have ignored my requests to explain why geological time is wrong.
>
> 5. How come you are RIGHT and everyone else over the last 2000 years has
> been wrong?
>
> 6. Finally I have never come across such a bizarre interpretation of
> Scripture as yours and regard it as not even Christian and extremely
> damaging to the Gospel.
>
> I hope this is put over plainly
>
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>; "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 10:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Another heresy
>
>
>> John,
>>
>> It disappoints me that the 'divine watermark' - to which I repeatedly
>> draw attention - has, so far, signally failed to deter those who insist
>> on reading their own meaning into the words of the J-C Scriptures.
>> However, those few who correctly perceive the implications of this
>> miraculous event (encountered in the opening Hebrew words) realise that
>> such practice is now no longer reasonable; that the Bible is confirmed as
>> a unique body of _divine revelation_ - and an implacable foe of
>> evolution.
>>
>> By the way, robust argument should not be interpreted as incivility,
>> impertinence or personal malice. ASA, surely, is a forum for grown-ups -
>> and one in which plain speaking is encouraged.
>>
>> Vernon
>> www.otherbiblecode.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
>> To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 3:25 PM
>> Subject: Another heresy
>>
>>
>>> Vernon wrote, in part, replying to Bob:
>>>
>>> .. (1) Apparently you doubt the Lord's veracity and sincerity in respect
>>> of the
>>> parable recorded in Luke 16:19-31. ... As a person 'like that' what,
>>> precisely, don't I get?"
>>>
>>> Among the many things I perceive you "not getting" is a civil tongue.
>>> Bob
>>> may be incorrect in his position (I seriously doubt that he is) but in
>>> no
>>> way would that incorrectness (if it were so) imply that he doubts the
>>> Lord's veracity. For you to imply this is simply being impolite.
>>>
>>> JB
>>>
>>> What does Michael Ruse say about C vs E in his latest book.
>>>
>>> See www.burgy.50megs.ruse.htm for a review.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Mon Dec 12 18:24:51 2005