Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> 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?
In response, it would suffice to ask why I should believe that they were inspired. But in
addition let me quote from A.T. Robertson's An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament:
"The modern verses are meant to be sense clauses, but they often mar the sense far more than they
mark it. They were made by Robert Stephanus in 1551 on a journey from Paris to Lyons as he went inter
equitandum. I have often felt that the horse sometimes bumped his pen into the wrong place."
> (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.
This may be corroborating evidence but a decision couldn't eb made on math grounds alone.
> (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?
Your 1st sentence is just the point I was trying to make.
> (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.
Why impossible? To put it more definitely, do you know of any such conversions?
> 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.
You seem to be falling into exactly the error that I warn about next. The gospel is that sins
are freely forgiven & people are accepted by God for Christ's sake. As to "what the Bible really says,"
"All scripture everywhere speaks only of Christ." A person who places his or her trust in Christ
crucified is not "confused about the gospel" even if they know & care nothing about the mathematics of
scripture. I am not saying this to dismiss such math investigations entirely but only to put them in
their proper place.
(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.
There are a lot of things that are in the Bible but which must be relegated to a secondary
position. All the legalistic versions of Christianity which effectively annul the gospel of free grace
are good examples. Read Galatians. Again, I am not saying that there are no math patterns in scripture
but if there are, their importance should not be overestimated theologically.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 12 2001 - 09:29:54 EDT