Re: [asa] The Challenge (was Advice for conversing with YECs)

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> On 27 October Iain Strachan wrote in part "...Vernon, are you prepared to accept that your numerical discoveries in the first verse of Genesis are...no 'proof '...that the text is divinely inspired?
> Iain,
>
> Rather than speak of 'proof ' (in the mathematical sense) I am happy to follow your lead when you describe Francis Collins as presenting 'overwhelmingly convincing evidence of evolution '. I believe - and am able to demonstrate - that the Bible's opening Hebrew words present overwhelmingly convincing evidence of divine inspiration and purpose (and I believe that trumps anything FC ever wrote!) - to be fairly described as a 'Standing Miracle'. Allow me to remind you that you too once held that view, as the ASA archive page http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200101/0541.html reveals. Here are a couple of excerpts:
>
> "...the first verse in the Bible...is a perfectly natural Hebrew sentence. It is also an exceptionally profound and relevant statement, as I'm sure we all agree. The meaning and relevance stands out independently of the numbers. I therefore do not believe that this was a self-imposed constraint by the author (presumably Moses). So it's either coincidence, or its a miracle from God. I'm inclined to the latter."
>
> "...obviously as scientists, we are all enthralled by the mathematical elegance of the universe that God created. As Christians, we also believe the Bible is divinely inspired. So perhaps it is not surprising that the sentence that describes the very act of creation also shows elegant symmetries and mathematical patterns?"
>
> Of course, things have moved on since 2001, and you may care to read my recently published page "A Resolution of Differences" (www.whatabeginning.com/A4/ResDiff/P.htm). Here is what I have written in the introduction to this persuasive piece:
>
> " The triangle-based structure of the Bible's eight opening Hebrew words (here referred to as Genesis 1:1+ comprising the first verse and first word of the second) has hitherto largely involved a consideration of the sums of unbroken sequences of their characteristic values (CVs) - these latter determined by the scheme of alphabetic numeration instituted circa 200 BC into Jewish society... In this page attention is switched to the differences of these same CVs. As we shall find, they too reveal triangularity, but of a kind that - though completely independent of the former - is no less remarkable, being essentially based upon a rare event, viz. two positive integers, one the double of the other, both triangles. At the same time we shall examine afresh the extraordinary relationships that exist between these triangles, the Hebrew words from which they derive, and the metric dimensions of an abundant modern artefact - the A4 sheet of cut paper. Further, we shall attempt to assign a probability to this train of coincidences."
>
> Iain, in now denying the power of these phenomena, you apparently fail to understand that it is the paradigm that underlies all your evolutionary beliefs that I am challenging. Clearly, (1) we now have tangible proof of the supernatural; (2) and tangible proof of its intrusion into our world of space and time; (3) science, as currently practised, is therefore no longer deserving of unquestioning acceptance; (4) the literal meaning of the biblical text is reinforced (for who would wish to question the words of one capable of composing and executing such a miracle?); (5) In particular, the 'birds before land animals', and 'a completed creation' makes nonsense of evolutionary suppositions - as, of course, do the evolution-serving notions that the Flood was a local event, and the prologue to the Book of Job, a mere fable. In short, the 'Miracle' leaves the 'old earth/evolution' conjecture in ruins, and opens the door to an alternative explanation of earth history that sits rather well with C.S.Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters"!
>
> Iain, I know your business is to look for patterns in data, to assess coincidences, and to weigh probabilities. You are therefore ideally qualified to confirm or contest my reading of the Miracle - and I look forward to your response.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vernon
>
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
> www.whatabeginning.com
>
>
>

Vernon,

I have grown weary of reading in your messages nonsequiturs and aspersions
cast on the commitments of list members to the teaching of Scripture.

Probably everyone on this list believes in the truth of Gen. 1:1, and most
probably believe that it is inspired by God. We arrived at this belief for
reasons other than its numerical patterns. How many people do you know who
first believed Gen. 1:1 because of the numerical patterns?

Believing Gen. 1:1 does not automatically cause anyone to accept your
particular interpretation of other verses in Genesis, and, in fact, vast
multitudes of Christians committed to the authority of Scripture have
interpretations different from yours.

You seem to want to trace all those interpretations to belief in
evolution. Yet many of them antedate Darwin and, in fact, are widely
believed by Christians who are not evolutionists. Evolution may require an
old earth, but how does it lead to general agreement on such a relatively
precise figure for its age?

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 6 22:56:07 2008