Re: [asa] The Bible's center verse (Vernon -- please note)

On 8/2/08, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:

> Herewith, a response to your email of 30/07/08.
>
> When I wrote (29/7/08) "I'm glad you give me the opportunity to settle this
> matter once for all." I was, of course. referring to my correction of
> certain erroneous statistics offered by the link to which you had drawn to
> our attention, viz. http://www.snopes.com/religion/center.asp, nothing more.

OK. Have you contacted Snopes challenging their statistics? I find
them to be fairly reliable in other things, so I am inclined to
believe them.

Specifically, what are they claiming that is demonstrably incorrect?

> Concerning your current challenge, "Unless you are ready to assert (and give
> evidences) that the AV is peculiarly inspired, the stats above have no
> particular relevance.", let me say that while, _in themselves_, they may not
> constitute the kind of proof you seek, they are, I believe, significant
> additions to the body of evidence that speaks of an unfolding divine
> response to the growing assaults on the integrity of the Judeo-Christian
> Scriptures.

You seem to be talking right past me here. Perhaps I was not clear. I
will try again.

1. Either the AV is peculiarly inspired (above and beyond all other
translations) or it is at best just another human attempt to translate
a group of ancient manuscripts, many of which differ from one another
in one way or another.

2. If the former is true, then your numerology exercise may well be of value.

3. If the former is true, then any errors and inconsistencies in the
text are attributable to a plan of God.

4. It is evident that there ARE errors and inconsistencies in the AV.

5. Therefore, if one holds the AV to be the best god can do, it
reveals him as incompetent.

That's a god I cannot follow. So I conclude that the AV is, at best,
just another text.

That, in turn, makes your numerology uninteresting, since if you apply
it to other translations, it fails.
>
> But, speaking of _evidences_, how satisfied are you with the general beliefs
> expressed in this forum? From my standpoint, science is a systematized body
> of knowledge based on facts which are observable, demonstrable and
> repeatable. Evolution, clearly, is a blatant contradiction of all these.

Some posts I agree with; some I do not. Clearly I do not agree with
your last sentence above. The fact of evolution is as well established
as is the shape of the earth. No place in scripture conflicts with it.
In its simplest form, it is just a description of what has happened in
the material world to bring us to this present place, just as
gestation is a description of how each one of us came into being and
digestion is a description of how each of us sustains his or her
life.. I'm sure you would not call gestation or digestion "blatant
contradictions of science."

> And then there is your own view that planet Earth is exceedingly old. Are
> you able to offer an absolute proof of that? You must agree that so much is
> taken on trust these days; and so much rests on assumptions which are
> unprovable.

First of all, nothing is "absolutely proven." For all I know, I may be
a butterfly having a particularly vivid dream. In a sense, the fact
that the earth is billions of years old is "just a theory." But the
evidences that this is, indeed, the case are overwhelming and
evidences to the contrary non-existent. To reject this fact seriously
is to commit intellecctual suicide.
>
> The Bible now speaks with a more sure, clear, voice. In particular, I
> believe Christians would be wise to consider whether Job 1: 6-12 and Job
> 2:1-7 are, after all, _fundamental truths_ that we ignore at our peril.

Job, of course, is a morality play. As such, it is difficult to take
it as literal.

> Should we not accept that lies and deceptions - and whatever else? - might
> thus be incorporated into the Divine Plan; for such, it appears, has to be
> the extreme response demanded by the problem of fallen man (Jer.17:9).
>
I think what you are suggesting here is that the evidences for a very
old earth were put in place by the Creator with the express purpose of
misleading us. This, of course, COULD be true. But I, for one, cannot
see why he should want to do this.

jb

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 4 13:18:54 2008