Re: [asa] Vernon's other bible code (was: The Challenge (was Advice for conversing with YECs))

Bernie,

I would assent to what Gordon says here. Bernie, if you're to provide
a convincing challenge to Vernon's claims, you'll really have to do
better than that.

I accused Vernon of committing a huge "non sequitur" in assuming that
his discoveries would lead to a literal acceptance of the six day
narrative - and I'll stick by that. However, when you write:

Therefore the
>> math and logic does nothing to prove God's divine intervention,
>> scientifically or mathematically or logically. In order to prove that,
>> you'd have to have the originals.

then you are also committing a non-sequitur. Why does it follow that
God's intervention HAD to be in the original, rather than in the
version that is most commonly used today? It might seem more logical
to you, but it doesn't follow, and I think you are using it as a
cop-out to avoid looking at the evidence.

My position is this; I studied the construction of 1:1 at around the
same time that I was studying the numerological tricks carried out by
classical music composers (bar counts etc). The construction of 1:1
is far more elaborate and clearly intentional than anything in musical
numerology. I am somewhat dubious about the tacking on of the eighth
word - the fact that it doesn't form a complete sentence but is
hanging in mid-air weakens Vernon's case. (As does all this pondering
about paper sizes).

I have also made it clear that I don't consider it an argument for the
historicity of the six day creation narrative; the numerical patterns
are confined to v1 and one or two other phrases.

Iain

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:52 AM, gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@colorado.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>> Hi Vernon-
>>
>> Everything about the Bible has to be taken on faith. We aren't even sure
>> who wrote Genesis or when. The oldest manuscript I think is in the
>> neighborhood of 200-300 BC. Moses was around 1200 BC. I'm not sure of the
>> accuracy, but the point is there are hundreds of years in-between when it
>> was claimed to be written and the oldest manuscript we have (maybe as much
>> as 900 years- consider that the USA is only 200 years old for reference).
>> Not good or bad- just the way it is, and the place of faith enters. It is
>> possible it was written 300 BC, as far as science and logic can make out,
>> and your claim of math is appealing to science and logic. Therefore the
>> math and logic does nothing to prove God's divine intervention,
>> scientifically or mathematically or logically. In order to prove that,
>> you'd have to have the originals.
>>
>
> Bernie,
>
> Although I think that Vernon makes too much out of his calculations, I feel
> that I should partially defend him against some of the criticisms he
> receives. I don't think the time of writing of Genesis is relevant unless it
> was so late that the numerical value system already existed so that a human
> author could have chosen the wording to give these numerical patterns.
> However the Genesis 1:1 wording looks pretty staightforward and natural. As
> to your argument that the originals might not be much earlier than the
> earliest known manuscripts, imagine the results that you would get if you
> applied that reasoning to other ancient classical writings. In many cases I
> think that the earliest known manuscripts are many centuries later than the
> estimated date of writing.
>
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.