> George said: "But let's follow up the physics analogy. Where the
> Omega-minus? I.e., does your scheme predict any novel theological
> result? "
>
> I had not thought of that angle. Good point.
>
Personally I do not think this is a good point at all. If the numerical
analysis started producing "novel" theology that was different from what we
understand already, I would regard it as a dangerous practice, leading to
cult formation, and would distance myself from it as far as possible. It
has to harmonize with what the text says on the surface, or else it is the
work of the devil.
It is only too apparent that there are many suspect Kabbalistic web sites
around that are borrowing such ideas for astrology, magick and other new-age
practices. The merit of Richard's approach is simply that it undergirds the
integrity of the bible. Let's see if there is anything in it (the
mathematical structure) before it gets bowdlerized by the New Age mob, who
will just take what they want from it and discard the rest in true
Post-Modern fashion.
(Note. The spelling "magick" appears to be used by New-Agers to distinguish
from "magic" which is an illusion produced by a conjurer. They mean real
supernatural "magick", and the word makes me shudder).
Regards,
Iain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 02:26:05 EDT