Vernon
If all this is so important then why is not included in all the creeds (eg Nicene) formularies whether Reformation or Catholic and is ignored by the vast majority of Christian down the ages.
Which ever it is 616 or 666 I don to care and it wont have any effect on my faith in Jesus. Like CSLewis I prefer the great centralities of our faith not peripherals like this or where the ark came to rest.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Jenkins
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID
Michael,
We are not dealing with 'trifles' but rather with information that has serious and significant ramifications. Clearly, generations of scholars have regarded the testimony of Irenaeus as settling the matter - 666 invariably appearing in Rev.13:18 in the text of all Bibles (with 616 offered in a footnote, if at all). The recent unearthing of papyri apparently bearing the value 616 must carry little weight for Irenaeus wrote that he was then already aware of this error.
Michael, you seem intent on defying all logic; but that, of course, is your business.
Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
www.whatabeginning.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Roberts
To: Vernon Jenkins ; j burg
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID
Vernon
Both the date of revelation and the number 616 or 666 cannot be fixed with certainty and thus it must be left as an open question. It has nothing to do with any"reading" literal or otherwise.
There is nothing in rev 2-3 to suggest that John dictated and sent seven letters. They are part of his apocalyptic book written in that unusual Ist century style.
Yes we need to be very careful how we read Revelation. Those who have taken it literally have not helped matters with lots of predictions for the future, an unhealthy interest in Zionism and a totally other-worldly view of Christianity. The consequences of misreading Revelation are great.
In a world where so many don't know Christ we should concentrate on Mere Christianity not trifles
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Jenkins
To: Michael Roberts ; j burg
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID
Michael,
In my email of 17 inst it was perhaps unfair of me to suggest that you wished the uncertainty concerning the number of the beast (666 or 616?)' to continue. You may remember that I offered a number of reasons why we should confidently settle for 666 - and proceed to draw a firm line under the matter. Your stance, viz. 'case unproven', appeared to rest on a non-literal reading of Revelation 1-3. May I ask your reasons for believing the Lord's 'Letters to the seven Churches' neither to have been dictated by him, nor ever delivered?
One further point: with respect to the Book of Revelation I think we Christians need to tread very carefully - for the consequences could be most dire if we get it wrong!
Vernon
PS As a matter of interest, of which church are you the incumbent?
V
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Roberts
To: j burg ; Vernon Jenkins
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID
There is a difference from "learning" from others and being their followers.
I have read Bultmann Tillich etc at length when doing theology. I had lots of Tillich as one of my teachers Burgy mentioned - John Heywood Thomas. I cant object to those three points.
There is a problem of going to one extreme or another. Spong is very attractive when we are reacting against an extreme fundamentalism and vice versa. I am marking an essay at present where the student pits inerrancy against a very liberal approach which denies all historicity in the bible. If you think there are two options either no historicity or Henry Morris type inerrancy which will most Christians choose? Thank goodness for Peter Enns and lots like him!!
Note that Lewis was not an evangelical but an orthodox mid-century Anglican. Too many today try to make him an evangelical who really espouses inerrancy. From his comments on the Psalms he clearly did not. He is far more liberal than Peter Enns or even G Murphy or me
His stuff converted me
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: j burg
To: Vernon Jenkins
Cc: Michael Roberts ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID
On 1/21/08, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote: "foremost among whom are your preferred authorities Bultmann and Tillich."
Careful what you write, vernon. I don't recall ever saying either of these two gentlemen were my "preferred authorities." As a matter of fact, I don't think I mentioned Bultmann at all.
As for CSL, I admire his writings immensely and have a number of them in my personal library.
I did mention Tillich, of course -- just in passing. I have read some of his stuff -- he is most difficult to understand. One thing I did understand is his "three ideas," as expressed in the book PAUL TILLICH (1968) by J. Thomas:
1. There is an infinite difference between the temporal and the eternal.
2. Revelation is necessary for one to know God.
3. There is an inevitable paradox when human language tries to express the divine.
Wich makes sense to me. God searched ME out -- I did not "find him."
John Spong also wrote: "Definitions of God do not exhaust his reality. All concepts of God are necessarily limited human ideas. Do not identify your own concept of God with God."
The book YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL expresses these ideas from one in a more conservative camp.
I suspect (w/o looking) that CSL also expressed the idea.
Blessings
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com/h4h.htm
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 29 16:37:11 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 29 2008 - 16:37:11 EST