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

Iain Strachan writes (18.11.08)

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.

But, at the same time you also said "The construction of 1:1 is far more elaborate and clearly intentional than anything in musical numerology." Further, we agree that it is clearly a manifestation of divine activity. Why, then, do you insist that its corrective influence falls short of Revelation 22:21 by 31,101* verses?

Are we to infer that you share John Burgeson's view that Genesis 1-11 - and the Creation Narrative, in particular - are myth?

You then go on to say, "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)."

Actually, I think the fact that the observed phenomena encroach on verse 2 (and therefore, by inference, on the remainder of the Bible) indicates that their Author's intentions are far more ambitious than you are prepared to admit. And as to your rejection of the significance of the A4 connection, I believe you are being unreasonable. For consider: the parameters, 105 and 99, of the two formulae that deliver the first 8 CVs of the Bible are simple subdivisions of 210 and 297 - the metric dimensions of A4. And then, of course, you have the 666/1260 connection. Iain, you're an expert in weighing such matters. Take a look at my page "Paper-Folding for Beginners" and give us a fair opinion. www.whatabeginning.com/A4/Origami/P.htm

Vernon

* The number of verses in the KJV is 31,102

----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
To: "gordon brown" <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:16 AM
Subject: 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 20 17:42:32 2008