Vernaon:
In reply to your last post (finally; I've been suffering a Texas vacation):
You wrote:
"I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your email of 28 April.
Let me first thank you for the personal good wishes. Of course, the
general tenor of what you have written gives a firm 'thumbs down' to my
claims. However, this is an attitude that I find somewhat confusing. May
I therefore request some clarification? For example, at what point in
the following development would we part company? Do you agree
(1) that the coordinated numerical phenomena involving, in particular,
Gn.1:1 and the Lord's Name, actually exist?"
Let me concede that they do exist. I have not considered it useful to check
out
your math.
"(2) that the circumstances surrounding their presence in Holy Writ are
hardly within the power of chance, or of man, to engineer?"
I suggest that they are, indeed, simply a coincidence.
"(3) that occurring in a Book which claims for itself divine inspiration,
an 'ET explanation' may be quickly discounted?"
An "ET" explanation appears absurd.
"(4) that it is therefore reasonable to believe that the phenomena are an
integral part of the divine plan?"
I see no reason to consider this claim valid.
"(5) that they are intended to accomplish some serious purpose?"
Likewise
"(6) that that purpose must, reasonably, include: a clear demonstration
of God's being and sovereignty; and a confirmation of the Book's
inerrancy - in particular, that "...Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners..." (1Tm.1:15)?"
Likewise. I don't hold an "inerrancy" position by the way. All the defenses
of this position I've ever read led me to more skepticism (almost cynicism)
than I really wanted to have. I have no quarrel with those who hold this
position; I
simply don't think they've thought it through.
"(7) that such can only be achieved by bringing details of the phenomena
and their associations to a wide audience?"
If I were not already a Christian, I would be less likely to consider His
claims
if your arguments (which I consider fatally flawed) were presented.
"I would greatly appreciate your comments."
You have them.
"You refer to my basing my studies on "ad hoc explanations, hidden
assumptions, etc." What exactly did you have in mind here? As far as I
am aware, I am mainly in the business of describing things 'as they
are'."
I am greatly puzzled that you do not understand this. I'm sure you know the
meaning of both "ad hoc" and "hidden assumptions." Let me
explain both, however, in terms of what I see as at least one of the fatal
flaws
in your thesis.
A "hidden assumption" which I think I've been able to draw out is that your
scheme succeeds only if the base 10 numbering system is used.
An "ad hoc assumption" is contained in your previous post, where you
finally concede that, yes, the base 10 system (for you) is divinely
inspired, and as
proof of that point to how well it works in your thesis. But you can't
develop an
argument that way. Your thesis says:
X is true (where X is all your math work)
X depends on the base 10 being divinely inspired.
The base 10 is divinely inspired because of X.
In other words, they stand (or fall) together.
What I was hoping for, when I queried you about the status of decimal
numbers,
is that you would give me independent arguments/evidences why 10 is
divinely
inspired. Let us assume that such evidence actually exists. 10 really is
the
divine plan, and nothing in your thesis X is needed to defend that
statement.
At that point, Vernon, you would have some consilience; two (or more)
thesis supporting one another. You don't have that.
BTW, I see no reason why 10 is divinely inspired. Does that make the
baseball pitcher Afred Afronseco (spelling?) non-human because he has
24 digits, six on each extremity? I think not. The Babylonians had a base
12 numbering system;
it is easy to see that such a system has certain advantages (if it had been
chosen
by us) over base 10.
"Regarding 'biblical inerrancy': I believe the Scriptures to be divinely
inspired; hence, that, ultimately - despite the frailties of their human
'authors' - they will fully and perfectly accomplish the purposes God
intended."
If that is what you mean by "inerrancy," we have no difference of opinion.
"Concerning the numerical phenomena, I agree it is rather strange that
nobody appears to have drawn these associations before. But that's the
nature of all novel insights, wouldn't you agree?"
Someone has to be first at almost everything. SO I'll have to agree here.
"Then, in respect of you asking whether I thought the prominence of ten
was 'divinely inspired', I thought I had conceded the point. I therefore
await your further questions."
No further questions. The defense (prosecution?) rests.
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 17:05:26 EDT