Re: Small probabilities

Even if these patterns are real, it seems dangerous to equate them with
"scripture." (Since my math is almost as bad as my Hebrew, I can't really
comment on whether they exist.) At best they would constitute evidence *
about* scripture that testifies to its veracity. They would not, it seems
to me, be authoritative on the church, or even useful, for any purpose that
Paul mentions in Second Timothy (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction
in righteousness). When we start equating coded secret messages with
authoritative scripture, gnosticsm isn't far away.

On 1/12/06, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:
> Randy,
>
> Clearly, whilst we agree to differ in respect of the significance of GF -
> i.e. the 'Genesis Factors' (an all-embracing and appropriate title, I
> suggest, for the bible-based numerical phenomena that have formed the
basis
> of our discussions), I'm sure we can, with confidence, join in proclaiming
> the Bible's first verse - as rendered in its original Hebrew - to be the
> most remarkable combination of words ever written. For whether we count
it
> to be a miracle of chance, or a message from God, it must be rated a
> _wonder_ of the modern world. However, heartening as I find this to be,
you
> appear to overlook the fact that the 'business end' of these events
appears
> at the very _threshold_ of an _extraordinary Book_.
>
> In his pastoral letters to Timothy, the Apostle Paul writes "All scripture
> is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof,
> for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may
be
> perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2Tm.3:16-17, AV). I
> think we would agree that 'all scripture' must include GF, for these are
an
> integral part of the original Hebrew and Greek texts - as we have seen. It
> therefore follows (provided, of course, that one accepts that the Bible is
> so inspired) that GF can be no _chance event_!
>
> As a beginning, therefore, don't you think it appropriate that ASA members
> be encouraged to make this powerful tool of Christian apologetics and
> evangelism more widely known?
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Small probabilities
>
>
> > Vernon,
> >
> > With all due respect to Iain, this is a point with which I disagree.
> > Per our previous discussion, the only argument offered against
coincidence
> > is very low probability, which I argued is, in general, insufficient to
> > prove that something is other than random or a coincidence. It can be a
> > good "search warrant" or cause to search for other explanations but,
> > lacking such evidence, coincidence is by no means ruled out. I have the
> > same concerns with Dembski's 10^-150 argument and his specified
> > complexity.
> >
> > I do agree with you that the ASA is, and should be, a forum where "we
> > continue to exercise that reason in prayerful consideration."
> >
> > Randy
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 12 17:28:27 2006