From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 07:13:30 EST
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>
> > I think, Richard, that you miss the reason why many
> > people like me are not interested. Let me state it and
> > see if you can tell me why I am wrong.
>
> Hi Walt,
>
> Thanks for you insights. They are very valuable, but I see a number of
> problems with the reasons you gave. First, there seems to be a fundamental
> inconsistency in your point of view. It leapt out to me immediately because
> I have seen it many times. Here is what I mean. You started out by
> suggesting that the numerical phenomena and the Bible Wheel are REAL and
> then said "Now what?" and went on to assert that it was a "toy" that "added
> nothing to Christianity."
Let me apologize for use of the word "toy". I realize now that few would take it
in the context that I meant it. So I will explain (and then continue to use it
for a while).
I have a laboratory that cost me about $50K to construct. It is for exploring
applications of entangled photos. My friends refer to it as my "toy". They all
know that it is serious to me but it means nothing to them. I do not take
offense at the use of the word. I do know a few who are interested in the field
and we share in each other's toys. I meant that of your work. It is a nice toy
and you can have a lot of enjoyment with those who share that inclination. It
means no more to me than entangled photons probably mean to you.
Entangled photons are one of the most mysterious things in God's created
universe. Nobody in science really understands what is going on. It is part of
God's magnificence and mystery in His universe. But it adds nothing to
Christianity for those who cannot see the beauty and awe. I feel the same way
about your math -- but prove to me to the contrary.
.
>
>
>
> If the numerical phenomena and the Bible Wheel really exist in what you
> admit to be "inspired writings", then how can you deny that God put them
> there? And if you admit that God put them there, then how could you then say
> that they are "toys" that "add nothing to Christianity"? I think you need to
> asked God, not Vernon nor me, why He put them there. All Vernon and I did
> was discovery them. I think it is inconsistent to 1) admit Scripture is
> inspired, and 2) admit its numerical structure is real, and then 3) suggest
> the latter to be nothing but a "toy." Forgive me, but your response also
> seems to lack Christian imagination and a proper historical perspective. I
> get the impression you answered without actually thinking much about the
> issue or reading any of the pages I cited. Forgive me if I am wrong, and
> please take no offence. I greatly value your effort to answer me.
I have tried to read your pages. They are not something to which I can easily
relate. Try my web site at http://www.paradoxscientific.com/mainpage.html and
then go buy a book about entangled photons and we can discuss the relevance to
God's universe. Now there is no reason for you to do that. Nor do I see any
reason to do what you suggest. You ask questions but you have given me no
answer.
>
>
> Another problem is that you have restricted the conversation to mere
> numerical relations. This is not at all correct. The patterns are fully
> integrated with all levels of meaning; its not just numerical. For example,
> there is the integration of the numerical structures with the plain text of
> Scripture, e.g. the reiterative prime hexagon/star pairs 19/37 and 37/73
> that generate the structure of Genesis 1.1 integrate with the plain text
> where God repeatedly associates the Work of Creation with the Number 6.
> Exegesis relating the Number 6 to Creation goes back to the early church
> (e.g. Clement of Alexandria). This also integrates with the nature of
> reality via hexagonal space filling structures, the hexagonal Chi-Rho, 3D
> axes, etc. Another example is seen in my work on the large-scale structure
> of Scripture in the form of the Wheel which has nothing to do with numerical
> relations per se. Any child can recognize the significance of the simple
> Circle as the ideal symbol of things divine, eternal, and perfect. Perhaps
> you could explain to me how it is possible to dismiss the beautiful and
> endless ramifications of the tri-radiant cruciform halo formed by the
> sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Bible Wheel? To call this a "mere
> coincidence" is to rob language of all meaning. Oddly enough, its the only
> answer I have yet received from people who deny the significance of my work.
I give you another reason. It is because geometrical patterns are beautiful to
some and meaningless to others. It depends upon how you think and visualize. I
am one who nearly flunked descriptive geometry in college and cannot relate to
visual objects or geometrical patterns at all. You (naively I think) expect
people to think like you do in this respect. Your patterns are as meaningless to
me as the exciting properties of entangled photons are to many others.
>
>
> It seems to me (IMHO) that you really did not mean to say that the patterns
> are real, because if they are really REAL, then there can be no doubt that
> they surpass the greatest discoveries in the history of the world.
You do everything except explain what value they add to Christianity. To me this
boarders on more Bible worship. When I am all done, what has it done for me in
terms of becoming a better Christian? I really await an answer to that.
>
>
> Finally, to suggest that non-believers would confuse this with "Kooky
> Christian stuff" because "People are always managing to find patterns in the
> midst of chaos" is an EXTREME stretch. I did nothing ... let me repeat ..
> NOTHING to force fit the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Bible Wheel.
> The truth is that I studied the basic Bible Wheel for FIVE years before one
> day thinking to myself, "Hey! The first Spoke is composed of the first book
> of the Law (Genesis), the first book of the Prophets (Isaiah), and the first
> book of the NT Epistles (Romans)! That's interesting." By the end of the
> day, I had the Canon Wheel in my hand. I was utterly struck dumb with
> amazement. I sat in awe for three days just looking at it. It was the purest
> moment of scientific discovery mingled with religious ecstasy. I had been
> studying the Wheel for five years, and I suddenly and effortlessly
> DISCOVERED a large-scale symmetric structure in the Holy Bible never before
> seen in the history of the world!
Think of what you just said. You worked for 5 years and then it just popped into
your head. When I was doing my dissertation, I had been working a problem for a
long time. Suddenly a new thought popped into my head and I did in 5 minutes
what I could not have done with less than many day's worth of calculation. My
heart was filled joy at the discovery of the wonder of God's works and "How
Great Thou Art" rang through my head for several days. My atheistic advisor did
not share that outlook.
> Sealed with the Aleph and Tav! There was
> no looking for patterns in chaos, Walt. It didn't happen that way. It is the
> Work of God.
And it may well be God's way of communicating His glory to you and to Vernon and
to a select group of people. Why do think that it is necessary for everyone else
to go to the work of understanding it --- even if they could. What will they
get out of it in terms of being a better Christian?
An objective person would also have to take the next step and see if the Koran,
in its original language, continues what you have seen in the OT and NT. And
then maybe the Bahi writings or the book of Mormon. .
>
>
> Thanks again for the intelligent and respectful feedback. It is greatly
> appreciated. I hope the conversation continues.
O.K. But, if you see what I meant by the word "toy", I have to continue to look
upon it that way (for you and Vernon) for the time being.
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 07:19:42 EST