For the particular attention of George and Dave:
I gather from your adverse remarks that neither of you has taken the
trouble to check the material I have put on line. Is it that you fear
these facts will challenge your deeply-held views?
As Christians, you will be aware, of course, that nothing we read in the
Book of Revelation may be lightly ignored (Rv.22:19). How then do you
regard Rv.13:18? Is this a bit of 'fun', George? - or a bit of
'nonsense', Dave? For your information, this bit of 'numerology' (as you
would, no doubt, call it!) specifies the investigations in which I am
engaged. I make this point in my new page.
Rather than barrack from the sidelines, why don't you both get to grips
with the empirical evidence upon which my claims are founded - and
attempt to 'shoot me down' by logical argument!
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
George Murphy wrote:
>
> 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/
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:41:56 -0500 George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
I have noted that many who have "discovered" some esoteric approach are
certain that it provides a sure basis for faith. The religious approach
of these folks seems to force them to the position that they are serving
God with their gnostic flair. I recall a chap who wrote a book on
pyramidology, declaring it an evidence that would strengthen the faith
of
Christian believers. Of course, he had to juggle the units of
measurement
to make things come out. Later he became obsessed with the moon and the
fact that it is "exactly" the right size to eclipse the sun (neglecting
annular eclipses, of course) as somehow demonstrating God's perfect
work.
He further ties the circumference of the moon to the New Jerusalem
(Revelation 21), despite the statement that the city is square (v. 16).
To make the perimeter and circumference come out, he adopts English
units
rather than ancient ones for the city, and fudges the lunar diameter.
Despite the impossibility of a circle being a square and the need for
finaggling, he makes this garbage too a support for faith.
Other esoteric approaches, like numerology, the Bible code and their
ilk,
seem to produce a kind of mania or obsession. It doesn't have to be
religious: witness the attempts to discover the Shakespearean authorship
via hidden ciphers. All provide the inerrant interpretation, the
ultimate
truth and, within the religious, the certain foundation for faith. It
appears that they can no more help themselves than a dipsomaniac can
avoid drinking. Consequently, I have to agree with your advice to ignore
the nonsense, though I may suggest a slightly different approach: Flush
it!
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 17:36:47 EST