Paul,
I am unable to confirm either of your references. Please check.
Sincerely,
Vernon
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 07/02/2001 2:15:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> vernon.jenkins@virgin.net writes:
>
> << It seems to me that your 'stunningly impressive suggestion' of a name
> having the value 616 cannot, of itself, lead the rational and unbiased
> mind to voice the considered opinion that the verse was necessarily of
> divine origin. >>
>
> I am not sure what the "rational and unbiased mind" is, or even if one
> exists. but let me try the same question with a different text:
>
> In Psa 22:3 (4 Hebrew), David speaks of being saved "from my enemies." This
> phrase is spelled waw, mem, nun, and a second word aleph, yod, beth, yod. In
> I Sam 22:1 ff is the same Psalm, but in v. 4, this phrase is represented by
> one word, so the nun is missing. One is the inspired original, the other is a
> scribal change. So now the queston is: If a clever person by various
> mathematical processes found a pattern of some kind (whether to do with pi,
> e, triangles or whatever) which was a stunningly impressive, but it was based
> upon the scribal change rather than the inspired original, would that pattern
> show that this Bible verse was of divine origin----even
> though it was not based on the original letters inspired by God?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 04 2001 - 18:34:50 EDT