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

Hi Burgy,

Here's Part 2 of my response to your email of August 4.

Before addressing your list of numbered items let me comment upon your understanding of the Book of Job. Yes, it can be regarded as a morality play or didactic poem; and whether based on fact or fiction, it is an integral part of the Christian canon. From this we deduce that it is for the instruction of God's people. It is its prologue that I believe to be particularly meaningful at this time. As I see it, we are there given two brief glimpses of what goes on 'behind the scenes' of our earthly existence - a 'window', if you like, on discussions and decisions made in the courts of heaven of which - though they may be of direct concern to us - while yet alive, we are blissfully unaware. It is hardly surprising that such a view (referred to as ' J ' in the sequel) is most unpopular - unthinkable, even - because it offers an alternative Bible-based explanation of earth history - one that challenges the deeply-ingrained old-earth/creation-by-evolution belief (' E ', say) However, I suggest this should not deter supernaturalists like TEs from a serious consideration of the merits of J - and of the likelihood that it is correct.

Modelled then on the information found in the Prologue to the Book of Job, we postulate the following: Satan has requested permission to orchestrate a grand deception of mankind which he believes will result in the destruction of the Scriptures, and of confidence in the being and sovereignty of God. Based on His foreknowledge of its long-term benefits, God supports the plan; Satan is permitted and empowered to proceed. A _global flood_ - on a particular interpretation of a single word - thereby becomes a _local_ flood; evidences of vast age are created in the heavens (these confirmed by modifying the behaviour of the relevant atomic clocks); every other thing (except empirical proof!) is put in place in order that man may be convinced of the truth of E.

That, in a nutshell, is what I suggest the truth to be. The growing body of evidence that the Bible is a self-authenticating text reinforces that belief.

To your objection that God would never allow us to be deceived by Satan; that He would never sanction such a scheme; let me remind you of the fact that He was ultimately responsible for Job's intense sorrow and distress - hardly things for which we would wish to be held to account! If God really is in control (which is what we Christians believe) then why the sufferings of His people?, why the holocaust and martyrdoms? and why the Incarnation and the Cross?! Clearly, these are facts concerning which we have no clear understanding. God indeed 'moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform'! Further to these matters, here is an extract from Exodus 4:10-11 in which we read (KJV): "...Moses said unto the Lord...I am not eloquent..but am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the Lord said...Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" Clearly, the Lord cannot be constrained to act in a manner acceptable to ourselves! Human sensitivities will not deter God from the course He knows to be correct in the outworking of the Divine Plan. If a constantly thwarted Satan is to play a part in the proceedings, then so be it.

Burgy, some years ago you drew the forum's attention to OMPHALOS by Philip Henry Gosse. I suggest this work goes hand-in-hand with the J option - as briefly sketched above.

Now, concerning the remaining matters raised in your email of August 4:

You wrote:

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.

VJ responds:

In my numerological investigations of the Scriptures I have followed two broad lines of enquiry. The first, based on a fair reading of Hebrew and Greek words as numerals (arising from the historically-attested introduction and use by these peoples of alphabetic schemes of numeration); the second arising from a consideration of certain 'surface features' of the KJV translation (1611) - particularly the numerical outcomes of the chapterisation and versification of the biblical text carried out some centuries earlier. Clearly, the first are completely independent of the KJV, and stand on their own as features that demand a supernatural origin. The second are interesting in that, in particular, they underline, (a) the significance of Psalm 117 (the shortest and central chapter: a paean of praise to the Lord), (b) the first two verses of Psalm 103 (the central two of the 31,102 which inhabit the KJV: "Bless the Lord, O my soul...) and, (c) the remarkable link between the world-famous name Shakespeare and Psalm 46.

Notwithstanding the errors you point to (which I regard as minor and attribute, not to an incompetent God, but rather to a purposeful God (working along the lines discussed earlier) and/or the carelessness of the human authors who were, nevertheless, divinely inspired). I therefore believe the KJV to incorporate all that is necessary for man to know concerning the deepest issues of life, and the way of salvation. In my view it is, indeed, peculiarly inspired.

>
> 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.

JB continues:

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."

VJ responds:

I cannot agree that the fact of evolution is well established. This is just wishful thinking. You might care to suggest one or two evidences which convince you of its truth.

> 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.

JB continues:

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 intellectual suicide.

VJ responds:

There are many ways to commit intellectual suicide. To believe evolution to be "absolutely proven" (as many do!) is one; and this, in my view, leads to the far more serious condition, spiritual suicide!

Regards,

Vernon

www.whatabeginning.com

www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "j burg" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 6:18 PM
Subject: 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 6 19:20:59 2008