Re: Tit for Tat (Richard's challenge)?

From: Donald Nield (d.nield@auckland.ac.nz)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 01:54:10 EDT

  • Next message: Ted Davis: "Alister McGrath to speak in DC"

    richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
    <snip>

    > There is no need to apologize for "not taking my word for it."
    > Demanding that I produce evidence is exactly what I want. Case in
    > point, the question of the "statistical significance" of the pattern.
    > I have addressed this in my article "Probabilities: What are the
    > Chances?" Here is the
    > link: http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp The
    > calculations involve nothing but basic combinatorics and should be
    > easy to follow for anybody reasonably comfortable with such. The
    > results are that there is one chance in 688,324 that 66 objects
    > divided into seven arbitrary divisions would exhibit both radial and
    > bilateral symmetry when displayed in the form of the Wheel. But there
    > is another aspect that should be considered. It would be a mistake to
    > think that a pattern is not somehow "valid" or "important" if it can
    > not be shown to be statistically rare. Think of the difficulties in
    > computerized pattern recognition. Intelligent beings see real and
    > important things all the time that can not be easily quantified. Try
    > and program a computer to recognize the Face of Christ that shines in
    > the believers' hearts as they read the Holy Bible. And this brings up
    > the "apologetic value" that you question. Who said God put this
    > pattern in Scripture as an apologetic? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
    > But I have never suggested that an unbeliever would benefit from a
    > faithless the study of the Wheel. An unbeliever must repent and
    > believe the Gospel. I would have no reason to believe that anyone
    > could see, let alone appreciate, the beauty and glory in the divine
    > structure of God's Holy Word if they have yet to see and believe in
    > Christ who is its central theme and purpose! On the other hand, it
    > certainly is striking, and I see no reason God could not use it for
    > His evangelical purposes. Actually, it does seem ideally suited to
    > answer many problems unbelievers have with Scripture.
    >
    > <snip> This looks like a very interesting area for discussion. It
    > wouldn't have to be limited to my work either. I hope someone takes up
    > the suggestion. Finally, concerning the Wheel as "proof of God" or
    > "proof of the Bible." It seems to me that such would be the
    > *inevitable* consequence of its validity, but that does not mean that
    > that is why God put it here. E.g. a car proves the existence of an
    > engineer, but the car was not designed just to prove that engineers
    > exist! It was designed to get you from point A to point B. The same
    > goes for the Bible Wheel. Might I suggest you take it out for a "spin"
    > and see what you think?
    > Thanks again for taking the time to give such a thoughtful, honest,
    > and insightful response. It is highly valued. In service of the
    > everlasting Lord, Jesus Christ,
    > Richard
    > Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
    > http://www.BibleWheel.com

    It would not surprise me if numerical considerations had some effect on
    the final form of the OT canon. That there are 5 books in the Torah is
    probably not an accident. That there are 12 books of the minor prophets
    suggests some design. With 5 and 12 established, it is not surprising
    that there might be 12 historical books and 5 books in the major
    prophets section and 5 wisdom books. The 22 is probably just a
    consequence of 5+5+12 =22.
    The four gospels plus Acts forms a group of 5, and it is likely that the
    early church saw this group as analogous to the Torah. That leaves 22
    other NT books. That may be a coincidence -- not improbable.
    Don Nield



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 01:56:22 EDT