Re: Small probabilities

David,

You wrote,

(1) "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."

The GF patterns are real enough and, contrary to your understanding, make no great demands of the investigator - as Iain has recently pointed out in his response to Jim. [In this connection might I point out that http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=The_Beginning_of_Wonders offers a concise introduction for the uninitiated].

You are concerned - and justifiably so - that I appear to equate these patterns with 'scripture'. However, I believe I made my position quite clear in my response to Michael Roberts (12.12.05). He had asked, "...(do) 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?"

My reply: "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."

As you can see, my understanding of these matters is in line with your "At best they would constitute evidence about scripture that testifies to its veracity." Though I believe more is to be inferred than this.

(2) "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)."

But are they not an integral part of the Scriptures? And do you claim - at a time when confusion about these matters abounds - that we are in no need of clear doctrine, reproof or correction?! Speaking of ET in London last Autumn the cosmologist Professor Paul Davies said:

"...no one doubts that the receipt of a signal from another civilisation would be Earth-shattering. It would surely be the greatest discovery of all time, eclipsing the findings of Newton, Darwin and Einstein combined...The knowledge that we are not alone would affect people's psyche, and totally transform our world view."

I suggest that much the same can be said of GF (a 'local' message - and one already in our hands!)

(3) When we start equating coded secret messages with authoritative scripture, gnosticsm isn't far away.

But if, in our day, the Creator has chosen to make His presence known in this remarkable way, who are we to say "But you're not allowed to do that sort of thing - it doesn't become you!" - or words to that effect? Clearly, the phenomena are highly informative - and must influence all who are not engaged in the defence of deeply-entrenched positions.

Finally, I'm intrigued to know where 'gnosticism' is likely to fit into all this.

Regards,

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
 
  

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Vernon Jenkins
  Cc: Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu ; Jim Armstrong ; Iain Strachan
  Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:27 PM
  Subject: 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
Received on Sat Jan 14 17:28:44 2006