David Campbell wrote:
>
> > [the numerological evidences] function as a seal that (a) confirms God's
> >being and
> >sovereignty, (b) speaks of his abiding interest in us, and (c)
> >establishes the self-authenticating credentials of his word."
> >
> >I suggest that such knowledge should cause all who are actively engaged
> >in discussing the matter of origins to theorise no more - but rather to
> >accept, and build upon, this solid foundation. Are we now really to
> >believe that this God is incapable of doing precisely what he tells us
> >he did at the beginning? [And besides, where do we find solid empirical
> >evidence to the contrary? Let's be honest, hasn't it all so far been a
> >matter of naturalistic interpretation and conjecture?]
Fun is fun, but there comes a time when it's necessary to be blunt. Claiming
numerological fantasies as a "solid foundation" for anything is just silly, the more so
when it's used as a way of short-circuiting serious biblical interpretation and serious
science. I guess Mr. Jenkins is free to post what he wishes but it seems to me that
it would be better for the rest of us to leave this severely alone.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 09:49:15 EST