Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID

On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Iain Strachan wrote:

>
> By contrast, do you get my point that Vernon's findings (not just the
> properties of 666), but the whole analysis of the seven values reveals
> connected and coordinated symmetries, connected almost entirely with
> triangular numbers and their properties? It's not that they are
> triangular that makes them special, but the fact that there are so
> many coordinated triangular numbers. (Though I agree that Vernon's
> post here concentrated on 666, which leaves out all the context). But
> if the seven were all related to, say Bell numbers or ternary square
> words, and so forth, that again would indicate an interesting pattern.
> In other words it's not just about finding an arcane mathematical
> property for each of the values.
>

While I am not impressed with Vernon's theology and Biblical
interpretation, his mathematics is impressive. Nevertheless, I just
find the whole enterprise flawed. Given a sufficiently large work you
can find patterns (particularly in Hebrew because of lacking the
vowels). What Vernon has done does point to God but not in the way he
states. Namely, it shows we are made in God's image. We look for and
find patterns even when they are not there. But, why do we all look
for such patterns? Because it is something deep within our make up to
search for purpose, meaning, and teleology. This points to God more
surely than the alleged patterns that he has found.

>
> However, equally I've seen on this list a tendency to push the
> alternative 616, and wonder if that is just motivated by a desire to
> debunk Vernon's findings, rather than saying one has proper evidence
> that this is the correct version. I accept that the image of the
> manuscript you saw says 616 and it is the earliest available
> manuscript. But that doesn't mean to say it's the original one, and
> that the original one wasn't 666. It just doesn't follow either way,
> and it's something I think we'll never resolve beyond doubt. Anyone
> who advocates one or the other is probably doing it because it fits
> with what they want to see.

I prefer, like Vernon, the 666 variant. I was noting that recent
scholarship puts that at risk, however. There has been a running
debate on whether oldest text or majority text is the proper way of
determining the autographs. Oldest text prefers 616 and majority text
prefers 666. Vernon quotes Ireneus but he does not go onto adopt
Ireneus identification of the Beast as Euanthas, Teitan or Lateinos.
The technique he used is exactly the same as was used to identify
Nero. One of the things that commends the interpretation of Nero is
that either variant supports it. Vernon's on the other hand depends on
one variant that's looking increasingly suspect. It's extremely dicy
to ever do this and betrays an interpretation of the inspiration of
Scripture that is to the right of Chicago-statement inerrantism. In
Chicago-statement inerrantism the problem of variant texts is "solved"
by saying that the original autograph is inerrant and no doctrine save
snake handling is dependent on a variant text. You would have to add
Vernon's hypothesis to the list. Any Bible code hypothesis pushes the
doctrine of inspiration towards mechanical dictation which Chicago-
statement inerrantism rightly eschews.

In summary, I come from Reformed tradition and we have a doctrine
known as the analogy of faith. This -- loosely stated -- is that which
is clear in Scripture should interpret that which is unclear. Jesus
told us in the parable of the ten virgins and other eschatological
parables that our application of his Second Coming (or own death prior
to that) should be that we should be prepared by being righteous. God
has given many on this list incredible talents in mathematics,
science, and engineering. We should be using that in service to God
and humanity rather than in endless speculation. What Vernon has done
is by no means unique, however, as the evangelical church is obsessed
with timelines, symbols, bacterial flagella, etc. I recall the uproar
at the church school my wife worked for in Wichita. There was a
booklet called "88 Reasons for the Rapture in '88". Whole families
"came down the aisle". I really wonder what that experience did to
their faith. Maybe my approach to Scripture is too pedestrian but the
more speculative approach appears to me to be very, very dangerous --
shipwrecking the faith of many.

Rich Blinne (Member ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 12 10:47:39 2008