This post concerns the site www.BibleWheel.com
It's an answer to George Murphy's post which doesn't seem to have appeared
on the Listserver.
> Richard -
> First I should say - for reasons to be noted momentarily - that
this is
> going to be my last post on the matter. I appreciate the time you've
devoted to
> respond to my points but we continue to be in basic disagreement
especially
> about the arbitrary character of the structure you've developed. I
realize that
> you claim below to have proved that it isn't arbitrary but I simply don't
think
> that you have shown any such thing. & given this mismatch in what we
think has
> been shown, it doesn't seem profitable at least for me to continue the
> discussion beyond this point. You may have the last word if you wish, and
of
> course anyone else who wishes to may continue the discussion. In the
following
> I give a few brief comments at appropriate points.
>
Wow! You completely missed the WHOLE POINT! You don't even address it! My
destruction of your argument had nothing to do with proving that the Canon
"isn't arbitrary!" I destroyed your argument by showing that even if the
Canon appears to be the arbitrary work of man, it does not mean that it it
is not the Work of God! In other words, your fundamental argument that the
Wheel is not the work of God because it appears to be the result of
arbitrary human choices UTTERLY FAILS.
Nothing you wrote later in this post even addresses the fundamental
question! All I got from you is "You're wrong, I quit!"
Yet there is more! Let me remind you of your own words. I quote from your
paper "Does the Trinity Play Dice?" published in Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith 51 (MArch 1999) 18-25:
"As Prov. 16.33 suggests, phenomena which seem random to us today might be
known and controlled by God."
For those who don't have a Bible handy, Prov 16.33 says: "The lot is cast
into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD."
My position is therefore established on all sides. I have full Biblical
support, full theological support, and full logical support. And beyond
that, I believe I have strong arguments to show that the Canon is not nearly
as "arbitrary" as you would have us believe anyway. But get this! The only
point you address is the latter one ... which is not, and never was, my main
argument!
Note the LOGICAL FORM:
Maj: The Work of God can not appear to be due to arbitrary human actions
Min: The Canon appears Arbitrary.
Con: The Canon is not the Wok of God.
This is your argument in a nutshell, and it is WRONG!
Lets take a vote! ASA List -- did Richard WIN the argument with George
concerning his point that the APPARENTLY ARBITRARY structure of the Canon
implies that the Wheel WAS NOT designed by God?
Moving on to the next point:
> > To understand why I disagree, we need to review David's statement. He
said:
> >
> > "Although I would certainly affirm the current 66 books of the Bible as
the
> > only authoritative set, I think that the issue of how to count them is a
> > problem. Splitting Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles into two books has more
to
> > do with the length at which scrolls become unwieldy than with a
particular
> > break in the narrative; one could also argue for merging Luke and Acts,
> > among others. Also, the Hebrew tally counts the minor prophets as a
single
> > book. This particular change alone would not substantially change the
> > opportunity for mathematical significance, as it decreases the total by
11
> > and thus merely requires a 2.5 fold rather than 3 fold use of the Hebrew
> > alphabet."
> >
> > Note first of all that he specifically refers to the 66 books, _by
number_,
> > as authoritative. Here he is in complete harmony with my thesis. He then
> > goes on merely to argue that this structure MAY be do to natural
> > contingencies like the length of the scrolls, and that people could, if
they
> > wanted to, merge some books.
>
> I think you have misinterprted David's statement, though of course
he
> may want to correct me. But I understand his first sentence in context to
mean
> that he affirms the content of the conventional protestant 66 books as
> authoritative, not that that conventional division and numbering is
> authoritative.
> In any case, it seems odd at the least that you should argue
(correctly)
> that the Minor Prophets were once a single "book" as part of an attempt to
put
> them (incorrectly IMO) in a separate category, and also to argue that they
have
> to be treated as 12 separate books.
>
OK, you tell me -- 12 out of a set of 66 objects sit separated in a box
together for more than 2000 years, and whoever then puts them together in a
separate category from the rest is accused of being arbitrary? This is
hardly worthy of response, let alone argument. And besides, you again have
missed the FUNDAMENTAL POINT of my argument. My PROOF of your argument's
FAILURE does not rest on whether or not the Canon is arbitrary! It rests on
the fact that it doesn't matter if its arbitrary because God uses this means
to accomplish His ends, as you yourself have noted!
Yet I do feel I gave sufficient reasons to believe that the seven divisions
are not arbitrary, but before I did that, I PROVED that your whole argument
is absolutely EMPTY because God can accomplish His work through any means He
chooses.
> > I am astounded that you would consider these to be "cogent reasons."
> > Consider the theology such an argument implies! Are you really saying
that
> > God can not accomplish His Work through anything that appears to be due
to
> > natural, contingent, seemingly arbitrary acts of humans? Are you saying
that
> > anything that appears contingent can not actually fulfill God's
preordained
> > plan? This flies in the face of the entire message of Scripture. The 66
> > books are nothing if not the story of how God has accomplished His Work
in
> > precisely this fashion. Consider the countless, seemingly arbitrary,
human
> > choices that led to the crucifixion of the Lord! In my opinion, this is
> > God's _primary_ way of acting in the world.
>
> Yes, God acts & reveals himself in the contingent events of
history.
> But there is no reason to think that one particular way of counting the
books of
> the Bible, and even less one out of several groupings of those books that
> Christians have devised over the centuries, possesses a kind of divine
> authority comparable with the content of scripture. Not everything that
God
> does in the world is in itself (a crucial qualification) revelatory.
>
Of course! But unfortunately, (for your argument) this has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. It is yet another LOGICAL
FALLACY. Just because "Not everything that God does in the world is in
itself revelatory" says NOTHING about whether or not the structure of the
Canon is revelatory! Get with the program!
> > This means that your primary argument, which you have repeated many
times
> > (see below), that the Wheel can not be the work of God because the 66
books
> > and the seven canonical divisions appear to be the result of arbitrary
human
> > choices, utterly fails.
>
> No. You have not shown this & therefore your responses to several
> further arguments of mine fail.
Man oh man oh man! What do you mean "I have not shown this?" How many
different ways do I need to repeat myself? I have proven your argument to be
FATALLY FLAWED!
>
> > In response to my arbitrary choice not to mention the Apocrypha when I
> > referenced the KJV, you said
> >
> > > Yes, the status of the Apocrypha is debated & the fact that
you
> > come
> > > down on one side of that debate doesn't in itself show that you're
wrong.
> > But
> > > ignoring this issue, which is certainly relevant to a claim which
depends
> > > critically on the number of books in the canon, means that a pretty
big
> > hole is
> > > left in your argument.
> >
> > Yes, it is a significant issue that must be dealt with if I want to
produce
> > an completely airtight case. But how many hundreds, or thousands of
hours
> > have been spent by both sides arguing from History, Biblical Criticism,
and
> > Theology? And to what result? Few people are convinced by those
arguments.
> > But if the Wheel can be established to be the Work of God through
completely
> > independent means, then we have an extremely strong argument against
> > believing the Apocrypha to be Scripture.
>
> If. & evenb so, this would be true if it could also be shown that
a
> Bible containing the Apocrypha could not lead to a similar structure.
>
Good point. Go do some research and see if you can find anything like what I
have shared on my site.
> > > > > 3. Accepting the protestant canon for the sake of
argument,
> > the
> > > > > division of it into 7 parts as you do is arbitrary.
> >
> > Note the repetition of the "Arbitrary" argument, which has been shown to
be
> > untenable.
>
>
> >> I did not do it. I merely reported the traditional divisions as
>
> > presented by
> > > > numerous scholars over hundreds of years.
> > >
> > > >E.g., there is no
> > > > > logical or theological reason for separating "major" and "minor"
> > > > > prophets. In the Hebrew Bible, e.g., all of those are included
with
> > > > > some of the historical books as "the former and latter prophets."
> > > >
> > > > This is simply wrong. The Tanach (pub by JPS) presents the "12
Minor
> > > > Prophets" as a separate category from the rest. Furthermore, this
> > division
> > > > is extremely ancient, being sited in the apocryphal book of Sirach
(vss.
> > > > 48:8-10) and confirmed by the esteemed scholar Lee M. McDonald in
his
> > "The
> > > > Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon" (pg 34) where he wrote:
"The
> > > > reference to the Twelve Prophets suggests that by the time of
Sirach,
> > the
> > > > "Minor Prophets" circulated in one scroll."
> > > > How can you argue against the obvious fact that the structure I
present
> > is
> > > > not arbitrary? It is an objective historical fact that I received. I
did
> > not
> > > > invent it!
> > >
> > > Of course "The Twelve" were grouped together - because, unlike
> > Isaiah,
> > > Jeremiah, & Ezekiel,
> > > the books of the individual "minor prophets" weren't long enough to
make
> > up a
> > > single scroll. I didn't challenge the grouping of the 12 together as
a
> > single
> > > book. What I questioned was your separation of "Major Prophets" and
> > "Minor
> > > Prophets" as two separate groups of books - a separation crucial for
your
> > 7-fold
> > > division of the protestant canon. But there is no basis in content,
date
> > of
> > > composition &c for this separation.
> >
> > Again, nothing but the failed "Arbitrary" argument.
>
> You have not shown that it has "failed." & note that you have
failed
> to present any theological or historical rationale for, e.g., the
separation of
> major & minor prophets - to note the just the most obvious arbitrary
choice.
>
What do you mean I have not shown it? Where, oh where, is your defense
against my DESTRUCTION of you argument?
> > > As I noted, in the Hebrew Bible both groups of prophets are
> > combined
> > > with Joshua, Judges, I-II Samuel & I-II Kings as "Former and Later
> > Prophets,"
> > > the 2d part of the Hebrew scriptures with Law and Writings. This
division
> > > probably goes back to at least the 2d century B.C. since it seems to
be
> > referred
> > > to in the prologue of Sirach, & is probably to be understood in Luke
> > 24:44,
> > > where "the psalms" stands for the whole 3d division (which begins with
the
> > Book
> > > of Psalms). Chapter 2 of F.F. Bruce's The Canon of Scripture is
helpful
> > here.
> > > Note that I am not claiming that this 3-fold division of the
OT is
> > > "inspired" or even that it's more logical than some other divisions.
It
> > is
> > > arbitrary, though convenient for some purposes.
> > > & that's really the point of my first few objections to your
whole
> > > approach. It's not that your divisions are wrong but just that they
are
> > > arbitrary, though perhaps convenient for some classification purposes.
&
> > the
> > > fact that they have some tradition behind them (not nearly as
monolithic a
> > > tradition as you suggest) doesn't change this.
> > >
> > > > > One could equally well divide the epistles into the Pauline ones
> > > > addressed
> > > > > to specific churches or persons and the catholic epistles, or put
> > > > > Revelation in a separate New Testament category.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, one may do whatever one wishes, but one can not then expect
others
> > to
> > > > consider such actions the work of God. This is why I am so adamant
in my
> > > > reiteration that this structure has been >discovered< after the
fact,
> > and
> > > > therefore can not be attributed to the deliberate design of any
human.
> > >
> > > The grouping you use is one among many possible groupings.
The
> > most
> > > that can be said to have been "discovered" by you is something about
the
> > history
> > > of biblical study, not something intrinsic to the Bible itself.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong. What I have discovered is absolutely incontrovertible pattern
that
> > objectively exists in untold millions of copies of the Bible. If you
want
> > any credibility, you must admit at least this point. You can argue all
you
> > want against its significance, but you can not argue against its
objective
> > reality. Anybody with eyes and any modern version such as KJV, NKJV,
NIV,
> > NASB, etc, etc, etc, can see it for themselves. It exists in our common
> > REALITY.
>
> Of course it's true that the pattern of 66 books is found in many
> Bibles. The 7-fold division of those books, which is what I've focussed
on, is
> quite a different matter. (& note that the fact that the 66 books are
arranged
> in the order you have is something different from putting any kind of
separation
> between major & minor prophets, e.g.
>
> > > >
> > > > > 4. The claim that this "proof of the divine origin of the
> > Holy
> > > > > Bible" is "self-evident" raises immediate suspicion. (Vernon
Jenkins
> > > > > makes similar claims.)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry George, this is ad hominem. You should know better.
> > >
> > > I made no personal attack, which is what ad hominem means.
> > >
> >
> > Was I mistaken to take your association of "Vernon Jenkin's" with
"immediate
> > suspicion" as an _attack on a man_ rather than a _response to an
argument_?
> > Also, this is the Fallacy of Association, as if my use of the same
phrase as
> > someone else had anything to do with the truth of my argument!
Furthermore,
> > its the Fallacy of mistaking Style for Substance! How I choose to
present my
> > results has nothing to do with their validity!
>
> I was simply pointing out that Vernon made similar claims. Since
Vernon
> had introduced your site I had the impression that the two of you were at
least
> sympathetic with one another's work, so that there was nothing "arbitrary"
in
> associating the 2.
I didn't say it was arbritary. (You might want to think about not using that
word for a few weeks! LOL) I said you made an association, which you did.
And besides what about the other TWO forms of logical error? You ignored
those.
> But the basic point is that the claim that such an argument as
yours is
> "self-evident" is unjutified and, whether the claimant intends it so or
not,
> seems like a form of intellectual intimidation: "Surely your smart enough
to
> see the truth of my argument."
>
> > Of course, I think you are probably right -- a lot of my style is
> > dangerously misleading. E.g. I am not a fundamentalist, but who could
tell
> > that from my web site? And for that matter, I don't even assert
inerrancy in
> > the ordinary sense. This lack of presentational clarity probably arose
> > because I have studied this topic for about ten years and have only now
> > begun to find intelligent interaction. That is why I TRULY value this
> > discussion! Please be patient with me.
>
> Patience is not my chief virtue but that isn't why I'm bowing
out of
> the conversation. There are only so many hours in the day & I need to
buckle
> down to some other projects.
>
What about my admittence of my shortcomings? Can you not recognize a real
man when you see one? I am ABSOLUTELY DEDICATED to the TRUTH - I will lay
down everything , my ego and my pride, if only I can find a man with enough
grit and integrity to really go the distance on this!
> > > >
> > > > All I can say to this is that you have utterly failed to >apprehend<
> > even
> > > > the most rudimentary points of my argument. I challenge you to find
a
> > single
> > > > page where any of my arguments lack in Christological reference!
> > Everything
> > > > about the Wheel points to Christ and His work on the Cross. That's
why
> > the
> > > > whole Bible is structured on the Number 22, which corresponds to
Tav,
> > > > pointing to the Cross. That's why there is a Cross at the center of
the
> > > > Wheel. Read Psalm 22 in light of 22 = Tav = Cross and you will
> > understand a
> > > > little of the depth of the Mind of God Who has given us His Eternal
> > Word.
> > >
> > > Undoubtedly you had the cross in mind in constructing this
> > argument but
> > > the mathematical argument itself is independent of it.
> > > & a less significant point: There is variation in the
numbering
> > of the
> > > psalms. The one counted as 22 in protestant Bibles is 21 in the
> > Septuagint
> > > because 9 & 10, which originally were a unit, are combined there.
(I.e.,
> > the
> > > division into the present 9 & 10 is arbitrary.)
> > > Of course this doesn't at all change the importance of "Psalm
22"
> > for
> > > understanding the Passion - but that has nothing to do with the fact
that
> > it's
> > > number 22.
> >
> > The fact that there is a variation does not mean that the numerical
index of
> > Psalm 22 is insignificant. Consider other textual variations, such as 1
Tim
> > 3.16, which gives Hos or Theos -- we must consider both, and the reasons
one
> > should be preferred over the other. We don't just say that _neither_ has
any
> > significance because there is a variation! Also, you failed to even
mention
> > the many theologically significant lines of convergence relating to the
> > Number 22, the Letter Tav, the Cross, and the structure of Scripture. If
you
> > don't want to appear to be a knee-jerk reactionary who simply rejects my
> > whole thesis regardless of merit, you should at least acknowledge some
of
> > the profoundly beautiful and theologically significant points I have
raised.
>
> Speaking of intellectual intimidation ...
Speaking about lack of reasoned response! Where's your answer? I am giving
you fully reasoned responses, and what do I get in return? Null.
>
> > > > The fact that the Wheel proves the Bible is of God is an inevitable
> > > > side-effect of its true purpose, which is simply to >know God<.
> > >
> > > The Bible has a theological unity: "All scripture everywhere
> > speaks
> > > only of Christ" (Luther). Any mathematical unity that can be
constructed
> > (N.B.)
> > > can be, at most, be of some value for illustrating this theological
unity.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, there is a lot more to it than merely illustrating the
theological
> > unity. But if all it did was illustrate that, what a wonder it would be!
> >
> > I believe I have addressed most of the points I had skipped. Let me know
if
> > I missed anything else.
> >
> > Now lets move on to you last post:
> >
> > >
> > > > One of your statements helps in this regard:
> > > >
> > > > > Note that I am not claiming that this 3-fold division of the OT
is
> > > > > "inspired" or even that it's more logical than some other
divisions.
> > It
> > > > is
> > > > > arbitrary, though convenient for some purposes.
> > > > > & that's really the point of my first few objections to your whole
> > > > > approach. It's not that your divisions are wrong but just that
they
> > are
> > > > > arbitrary, though perhaps convenient for some classification
purposes.
> > &
> > > > the
> > > > > fact that they have some tradition behind them (not nearly as
> > monolithic a
> > > > > tradition as you suggest) doesn't change this.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think you see how strongly your point argues for the
validity of
> > my
> > > > thesis! Consider the simple combinatorial mathematics of the
situation.
> > What
> > > > are the chances that anybody who takes 66 objects and combines them
into
> > > > seven ARBITRARY divisions will arrive at a structure that is both
> > radially
> > > > and bilaterally symmetric? I won't bore you with the details
(especially
> > > > since I haven't worked them all out yet) but I will assert that the
> > > > probability of such a structure arising by chance is EXCEEDINGLY
TINY.
> > >
> > > Since you haven't worked this out yet there's no need for me
to
> > debate
> > > the point but it's not at all obvious that the probability is this
small.
> >
> > I still need to work this out ... its rather complicated.
> >
> > > But more to the point is the fact that you have said nothing
here
> > to
> > > cyhallenge the point I made about the lack of theological, historical
&c
> > > rationale for your 7-fold division. This being the case, you're just
> > doing
> > > math. & you can do all the math you want & still won't get theology
out
> > of it.
> >
> > First - note that we have yet again encountered the defunct "Arbitrary"
> > argument. But there is more I should say. My study is much, MUCH, more
than
> > math. And besides, I have left your constant repetition of the supposed
> > arbitrariness of the canon go unchallenged, in the sense that I have yet
to
> > show how it really is not arbitrary at all. Strictly speaking, this is
not
> > necessary since your "Arbitrary" argument fails anyway, but I sense it
is
> > necessary in order for you to see what is really going on here.
> >
> > You have conveniently left out the beginning of it all - the Pentateuch.
Do
> > you assert there is no theological or historical reason to group those
> > books? How about the NT history? Many people, before I was born, thought
> > those five went together. And what of the 22 Epistles? Even if you want
to
> > categorize Revelation as Apocalyptic, you still need to recognize it is
an
> > Apocalyptic Epistle, and so the 22 Epistles stand as a NON-ARBITRARY
group.
> > And what about the 12 Prophets? We have an ancient witness that these
have
> > been collected together as a unit for more than 2000 years! The more I
think
> > about it, the more your assertion of arbitrariness seems itself to be
truly
> > arbitrary!
>
> Of course there are some traditional, and more or less natural,
> groupings of books. One of the most traditional groupings of the OT,
affirmed
> (as I noted) in at least one verse of the NT, is 3-fold - Law, Prophets,
> Writings. Some of your categories have to do with content (e.g., history)
&
> some with form (e.g., letters). & the category of "letters" is really a
kind of
> catch-all, boiling down to the fact that you have a document sent by one
person
> to another person or group & having little to do with the content of the
> document. E.g., the "letter" to the Hebrews isn't really in epistolary
form -
> it has something like the right conclusion but no salutation &c. It's a
sermon
> on Ps.110 intended to encourage it's hearers to persevere in the faith.
If I
> send you a doctrinal sermon through the mail it's proper literary category
is
> "doctrinal sermon", not "letter."
>
So what? Why have you written all these words, and failed to even
acknowledge, let alone defend, your fundamental argument that I DESTROYED?
> > > > Yet that is but the beginning. How can we ignore the symmetric
sevenfold
> > > > structure of the Canon in light of the universally recognized
Biblical
> > > > significance of the Number Seven? And how can we ignore the
theological
> > > > significance of the line of bilateral symmetry dividing between the
> > Aleph
> > > > and the Tav, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet? And
how
> > can
> > > > we ignore that all of this is going on in a book that declares
itself to
> > be
> > > > the Word of God? The nimbus of divine associations is overwhelming!
> > >
> > > For a start, your "7-fold structure of the canon" is an
arbitrary
> > > structure imposed upon it, as I have shown several times. & all this
is
> > "going
> > > on" not in the Bible but in a classification scheme that you've
> > constructed for
> > > the books of the Bible.
> > >
> >
> > Again, it is NOT MINE! And again - there's that failed "Arbitrary"
argument
> > again! And how, tell me how, can you possibly assert that I am the one
who
> > "constructed" this classification scheme? It existed objectively in the
> > world before I was born!
> >
> > > > Yet there is still more! Even if we ignore the incredible sevenfold
> > symmetry
> > > > of the Canon, we still have to deal with the underlying structure of
the
> > 66
> > > > books. Read my article called "A Great Cloud of Witnesses." In it, I
> > > > demonstrate how numerous scholars, innocent of any bias towards the
> > Wheel by
> > > > reason of complete ignorance of it, have borne witness to the
thematic
> > > > correlations linking the books on each Spoke. Most notable is the
great
> > > > thematic river that unites Genesis, Isaiah and Romans, which
constitute
> > > > Spoke 1 of the Wheel, as detailed in the article just cited.
> > >
> > > No doubt. There's also a literal, & yet profoundly
> > theological,
> > > "great thematic river" linking Genesis, Ezekiel, and John.
> > >
> >
> > Yes - the Bible is an infinitely integrated book - from the mind of God.
> > Just like you could find endless relations between any part of the body
with
> > every other part ... but this does not deny that some parts are uniquely
> > related.
> >
> > E.g. Read my article called "A Great Cloud of Witnesses." In it, I quote
> > Herbert Wolf who reports that Isaiah has been called the Romans of the
Old
> > Testament. Can you find similar quotes relating your little threesome?
And
> > that's but one example. Go to the site to find many, many more.
>
> I have no wish to deny relationships between Isaiah and Romans.
Those
> between Ezekiel and John are also strong - river of life (cf. also Genesis
of
> course), new temple, Good Shepherd (Ez.34) &c. & if someone put together
a
> structure that turned out to correlate these 2 books, he/she could
proclaim it
> beautiful &c.
Yes they are "strong" but they are nothing like the TITANIUM that binds
Genesis, Isaiah, and Romans.
>
> > > Yet there is still more! The thematic correlation can be
mathematically
>
> > > > measured by the distribution of words throughout Scripture. A
notable
> > > > example being given in my article called "Creation." (Select Spoke
1 -
> > Aleph
> > > > and go to the article called Creation.) In this article I
demonstrate
> > the
> > > > distribution of words based on the roots bara (Hebrew) and ktidzo
> > (Greek)
> > > > occur on Spoke 1 with a frequency that is TEN TIMES THE STANDARD
> > DEVIATION!
> > > > This is an example of how the _semantic content_ of Scripture
correlates
> > > > with the _geometric structure_ of the Canon.
> > > >
> >
> > Where is you response to this mathematically measurable and highly
> > significant statistical result?
>
> Having granted that the books you refer to have important
theological
> relationships, I'm not amazed that there is such a verbal correlation. I
could
> have guessed that there's be such a correlation with "creation" words
between
> Genesis & Isaiah without a formal analysis. (See, e.g., Chapter 2 of my
book
> The Tranbdemark of God).
I will look into it when I get a chance.
>
> > > > As a final note -- I must ask how a man with a PhD in Physics can
fail t
> > o
> > > > immediately recognize the profound significance of this symmetry,
since
> > > > symmetry is one of the most fundamental concepts that unites our
study
> > of
> > > > God's other great work, Creation itself?
> > >
> > > Probably because this particular physicist is also a
theologian &
> > want's
> > > to see some theological content. Not all math symmetry is embodied in
the
> > real
> > > world, & the fact that your classification scheme has some symmetry
> > doesn't
> > > mean that it corresponds to anything of theological significance.
> > > But let's follow up the physics analogy. Where the
Omega-minus?
> > I.e.,
> > > does your scheme predict any novel theological result? (For
> > non-physicists:
> > > The correct prediction of the omega-minus particle, with strangeness
minus
> > > three, was a major factor in convincing particle physicists of the
value
> > of
> > > Gell-Mann's SU3 symmetry scheme and ultimately the quark model.)
> > >
> >
> > Ahhh ..... a beautiful question! Unfortunately, it is quite late, and
this
> > post is quite long, so I will answer it as soon as I get some more time.
> > Rest assured I am eager to discuss this as soon as I am able.
>
> It will indeed be interesting if you do arrive at any novel
theological
> insisghts (in the sense I'm going to describe in a brief response to Iain
> Strachan's post). In that case they will of course have to be tested
against
> the body of fundamental Christian belief.
>
> >
> > I want to thank you again for persevering through this discussion, and
my
> > hopes are still high that we will continue ...
>
> Sorry I can't persevere more but only so much can be done.
>
God bless you George, I wish you had more patience and perseverance!
But in any case, thank you for the time you gave me, and for confirming to
the world that Wheel of God is like that house that Christ spoke of when He
said: "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."
Richard
www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 21:35:46 EDT