Re: Watershed

From: M.B.Roberts (topper@robertschirk.u-net.com)
Date: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 01:18:06 EDT

  • Next message: John Solum: "Re: Santorum Amendment"

    Vernon

    I am sorry but I find your treatment of the Bible misguided and offensive. I
    did once refer your work to the unrude and not unlearned and got a ribald
    response.
    The bible is to make us wise unto salvation and not teach silly myths.
    I am sure your time would be better spent teaching the bible in a run down
    Welsh church or chapel (tautologous as most are run-down as the church is
    very weak in Wales.) and do so simply - "Tell me the stories of Jesus " etc
    etc.
    There is a right and a wrong use of our intellect to understand our faith. I
    am afraind that my Welsh Churchwarden would say your work is "hen glonc" -
    North Welsh for old rubbish or something similar.

    Yours as a simple bible-believing Christian

    Michael (IQ in single figures)
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
    To: "M.B.Roberts" <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 1:19 AM
    Subject: Re: Watershed

    > Michael,
    >
    > I take your point about the Bible being for the 'rude and unlearned'.
    > However, presumably they believe what they read! This cannot be said of
    > the sophisticated and learned, as I think you must agree. I believe that
    > it is to such as these that the numerical phenomena are directed. And
    > while you may not personally be readily conversant with these constants
    > (which are principally of interest to mathematicians, scientists and
    > engineers), I believe you are capable of responding positively to the
    > extreme unlikelihood of such famous entities appearing in Gen.1:1 and
    > John 1:1.
    >
    > My hope is that you have not rendered yourself unteachable in respect of
    > the scriptures. The letters and words of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
    > originals really do have an uncontrived numerical dimension - though I
    > doubt that this would be stressed in any Bible college; possibly, not
    > even mentioned! As I see it, these numbers which underpin the text were
    > as much planned by God as the words themselves; the evidence of that
    > fact is apparent in the numerical phenomena associated with the Bible's
    > first verse. Significantly, by so doing, the Creator has provided the
    > Bible with self-authenticating powers - apparent only to those who will
    > allow reason to be their guide!
    >
    > May I suggest that no Christian should throw his intellect overboard
    > when confronted with self-evident truths that appear to threaten his
    > beliefs.
    >
    > By the way, I happen to be Welsh.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Vernon
    >
    > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
    >
    >
    > M.B.Roberts wrote:
    > >
    > > Is this pi in the sky?
    > >
    > > More seriously this quasimathematical eisegesis makes mockery of the
    Divine
    > > word of God. As Calvin wrote Moses wrote for the "rude and unlearned" in
    > > other words thick idiots like me. I can understand that " in the
    beginning
    > > God made the heavens and the earth" but I am simply too thick to even
    begin
    > > to understand all this about pi and e.
    > > I also have to preach to the Welsh so I have to be simple but they are
    no
    > > thicker than the English or Americans.
    > >
    > > Michael
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "John W Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
    > > To: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
    > > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 9:49 PM
    > > Subject: Re: Watershed
    > >
    > > > >> the Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 deliver a value for the fundamental
    > > > constant
    > > > 'pi' correct to 5 significant figures (underestimating the true value
    by
    > > > a mere 0.0012%). Precisely the same procedure applied to the Greek of
    > > > John 1:1 yields an estimate of Euler's number, 'e', also correct to 5
    > > > significant figures (overestimating the true value by 0.0011%)>>
    > > >
    > > > So God is an imperfect mathematician? He underestimates pi and
    > > > overestimates e?
    > > >
    > > > Sorry.
    > > >
    > > > John Burgeson (Burgy)
    > > >
    > > > www.burgy.50megs.com
    > > > (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
    > > > humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
    > > >
    > > >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 04:09:35 EDT