George,
I would like to comment on the points you make here.
(1) You appear to have a very rigid view of divine inspiration -
apparently believing it to have died with the NT writers. Are you not
prepared to accept that those responsible for the divisions and
punctuations that we now find in our Bibles were also so inspired? And
if not, why not?
(2) Concerning the correct reading of Genesis 1:1, you say, "I think
Westermann has made a good case for the first & more traditional reading
but a decision can't be made on grammatical or syntactic grounds alone."
May I suggest that the matter is now settled in favour of Westermann;
the real and remarkable confluence of integrated numerics found
underlying these first 7 words of scripture get to the heart of the
matter, and remove any lingering doubt.
(3) Regarding the first of your 'theological' objections, you state:
"Getting pi from Gen.1:1 & e from Jn.1:1 yields little of theological
significance. It's supposed to prove that the Bible is divinely
inspired but at most it could prove that those 2 verses are inspired. &
one could even argue from the fact that there isn't any similar
mathematical correspondence for other parts of scripture that_only_
those verses are inspired."
What might be the logic of the Lord inspiring the writing of just these
two verses. Surely it's more likely that there is a grander purpose?
(4) In the second of your theological points, you say: "The argument can
be of value only for getting the attention of unbelievers and suggesting
to them that the message of the Bible deserves some consideration. Has
it done so? How many conversions have begun with this argument?"
Clearly, such questions are impossible to answer. However, I do not
doubt the potency of the numerics in making the unregenerate sinner more
amenable to the work of the Holy Spirit; but I suspect the message is
also for those believers who, perhaps unwittingly, are completely
confused about the Gospel, and about what the Bible really says! To know
that God is, and to know that he is so capable, should help to restore a
healthy fear of him, and belief in what he says.
(5) In your third and final theological statement, you said: "If anybody
does take this message seriously, it's going to be very easy for them to
get the idea that pi and e are the really deep level of scripture hidden
below the surface details about the history of Israel & the church -
just as in _Contact_ pi is hidden below the primes and Hitler and the
plans for the transit device. & this would be disastrous theologically,
for the deep meaning of scripture is Jesus Christ.
I gather the suggestion here is that people, once aware of the numerics,
are in danger of deifying the universal constants pi and e. What
nonsense! You are really challenging the wisdom of him who put these
phenomena in place. Surely, our understanding of the Lord, and of the
lengths to which he is prepared to go to save deluded sinners, is
considerably enhanced when we study and consider what he has provided in
this complementary strand of scriptural information.
I'm afraid all theologians are going to have to come to terms with these
arguments of simple logic - distasteful as that might be in many
quarters!
Shalom.
Vernon
george murphy wrote:
> One point that seems to have been missed in all this is the
> fact that verse divisions were not part of the original Hebrew text of
> the OT or the Greek text of the NT. These divisions often seem quite
> arbitrary. Thus the numerical evaluations of "every verse" of torah,
> or the rest of scripture, aren't very meaningful.
> It might be argued that this criticism doesn't apply to
> Gen.1:1 and Jn.1:1 because those are complete sentences. But the
> sentence punctuation is also later and to some extent arbitrary. With
> Genesis, there has been an extensive debate among biblical scholars
> about whether v.1 should be read as a complete sentence which stands
> as a heading for the whole creation account or whether it should be
> read, as a number of translations do, "In the beginning, when god
> created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void ..."
> (NRSV). I think Westermann has made a good case for the first & more
> traditional reading but a decision can't be made on grammatical or
> syntactic grounds alone.
> It is also quite common to read Jn.1:1 as a single sentence
> but we wouldn't have to. One could read it as "In the beginning was
> the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God."
> (This wouldn't be elegant Greek, but John isn't very elegant Greek
> anyway.) This corresponds to Phillips' paraphrase: "In the beginning
> God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with
> God and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning."
> My major reason for considering this whole line of argument to
> be at best "mildly interesting" is, however, theological, and can be
> stated in 3 parts.
> 1) Getting pi from Gen.1:1 & e from Jn.1:1 yields little of
> theological significance. It's supposed to prove that the Bible is
> divinely inspired but at most it could prove that those 2 verses are
> inspired. & one could even argue from the fact that there isn't any
> similar mathematical correspondence for other parts of scripture that
>_only_ those verses are inspired.
> 2) The argument can be of value only for getting the
> attention of unbelievers and suggesting to them that the message of
> the Bible deserves some consideration. Has it done so? How many
> conversions have begun with this argument?
> 3) If anybody does take this message seriously, it's going to
> be very easy for them to get the idea that pi and e are the really
> deep level of scripture hidden below the surface details about the
> history of Israel & the church - just as in _Contact_ pi is hidden
> below the primes and Hitler and the plans for the transit device. &
> this would be disastrous theologically, for the deep meaning of
> scripture is Jesus Christ.
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 11 2001 - 18:10:45 EDT