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

I am inclined to side with Bernie rather than with Gordon and Iain. Since
written language is closely associated with commerce, the number system
would arise early. Also, the precise wording of Genesis 1:1-2 would be at
the discretion of the final editor. A human source for this wording is
quite plausible to me.
Don

> 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 18 03:52:12 2008