From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 04:24:47 EST
Richard,
I've enjoyed many of your posts, especially those on such topics as QM and the origin of life; but some of your recent responses have become strident, and that makes me fear you might soon give up and quit this forum. I don't want to see that, because overall you've made a significant contribution here IMO.
That said, I have to acknowledge that I'm completely unable to find your discoveries about biblical geometry and numbers, or Vernon's discoveries about numbers, to be of any value for me personally. They may well be valuable for some people, but I'm not one of them.
My most compelling reasons are different from Walt's. Curiously, they fly in the face of one of your and Vernon's main points, namely, that your discoveries strongly support letter-for-letter divine inspiration of the Bible.
I believe the Bible was divinely inspired, but my view of inspiration is likely at an opposite pole from your view of it. Those who believe the order of the biblical writings or the details of the letters in the words are significant must hold to a "pipeline" view of inspiration, where every letter must somehow have been dictated directly by God as a boss to a secretary. Not only that, but God also had to strictly micromanage the scholars who later decided which writings to include in the canon and in what order. Such a view of interpretation would make the Bible an extreme example of divine intelligent design. And you and Vernon, I believe, are in fact claiming that's exactly what it is.
I have a much looser view of inspiration, and I've been living with it now for so long, and it's proved so valuable to me, that it's not possible for me to go back to the pipeline view I had as a child. Some reasons: First, the biblical writings nowhere claim to be inspired letter for letter. Parts of the Pentateuch and the prophetic writings give the impression of word-for-word dictation, but most writings are not of that sort. Second, we know that the manuscripts we have today are not letter-for-letter the same as the originals. Third, the apostle Paul from time to time explicitly states that he's giving his own views rather than God's (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 7). Although I regard Paul's views there as inspired, it's unreasonable to think they're inspired letter for letter. Fourth, there are quite a few statements or descriptions in the Bible that I've come to believe are simply erroneous (e.g., 2 Peter 3:5-6). Fifth, parts of the Bible seem to include folklore and myth, albeit written up in a God-inspired way. This is not limited just to the first several chapters of Genesis. For example, how many of us believe Lot's wife really became a pillar of salt?
In principle I should be a primary target for your discoveries, because I have a loose view of inspiration and your discoveries present evidence for a tight view of inspiration. But I'm constitutionally unable to bite.
Perhaps the most important reason I can't bite is that I've had a close, personal relationship with God over a period of several decades, and my loose view of biblical interpretation has not gotten in the way of that relationship. On the contrary, I may be one of relatively few who have been converted away from YEC and a rigid adherence to the biblical letter not by any scientific evidence but directly through my personal relationship with God. It just became obvious that an old earth and a looser Bible were more consistent with God as I knew him than the young earth and the biblical rigidity that I grew up with. This was a very liberating conversion. It took place not in some stimulating intellectual environment inhabited by liberal theologians but in the US Army while I was a private slogging though German mud.
For me to go back to that biblical rigidity would be a definite step backwards, and I can't do it.
Of course I can't say for sure that God would not go to the trouble of deliberately arranging all these biblical phenomena that you and Vernon have discovered, but even if he did I'd still stick to my loose view of biblical interpretation.
Just thought you might like for your collection one more set of reasons why your biblical discoveries aren't going to be appreciated by everyone.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: richard@biblewheel.com
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: The Iota Subscript
Walt has exited the conversation having disgraced himself with rantings
about the supposed ravings of those with whom he disagrees. He quit without
successfully arguing a single point against the validity of the phenomenon
presented or its relevance to the general Body of Christ. This is typical of
most people who come against my work on this list, though some have
gracefully ended the conversation when they discovered that their initial
arguments were weak, ignorant, flawed, or when they simply lost interest.
Unfortunately, Walt did not do this. He explicitly stated he did not even
understand the very thing against which he so vehemently argued, and as his
vehemence increased so his rationality decreased. His final argument was
based on the patently absurd Fallacy of Association, as if the superficial
similarity between my work and that of others had anything to do with its
validity.
Meanwhile, Walt ignored each and every point of evidence presented. He never
once answered any points of fact. When I gave specific and highly detailed
answers to his questions, he responded with one broad generality:
>I read the posts and they only demonstrate to me
> your own fascination with your own theory
I suppose George would see this as one of Walt's "cogent responses" to me.
His final error is perhaps the most egregious. I had written to Dr. Nelson
because he had misunderstood my work, thinking it only an effort to "prove
the Bible". This is an extremely common misunderstanding despite the vast
majority of my writings both here and on my site which have nothing to do
with such proof per se. In my efforts to open Dr. Nelson's eyes to the
multifaceted wonder that is the Bible Wheel, I wrote a long and detailed
analogy of a car that obviously designed, but certainly not for the mere
purpose of "proving it was designed." Walt admitted to reading that post,
and shortly thereafter wrote this:
> Both of these made the same claim that you and Vernon do.
> They would prove the Bible was divinely inspired. That,
> my friend, is an absolutely worthless objective when
> speaking to those who already believe it. There is no good
> reason why you should fare any better than the above two
> and probably for the same reasons.
What more need be said?
I think it important to emphasize that I have no animosity with Walt, though
I would have been happier if he had not abruptly ended the conversation.
Personally, I see no problem discussing things with him in the future if he
so desires.
I also want to thank him for blasting my house with such vehement winds and
rains, so all can see what its really made of, and that it remains as strong
as ever, standing firmly upon the Rock of God's everlasting Word. We all
know that if he could have, he would have found a genuine flaw and presented
it with great gusto, so as to be able to destroy this house without
resorting to logical fallacies and name calling. He has done us all a great
service in that regard.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
To: <richard@biblewheel.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: The Iota Subscript
>
>
> richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok Walt, I will grant (for the sake of argument, though I find it
impossible
> > to believe) that my work may be over your head.
>
> You fail to understand that not all people think alike. You are obviously
quite
> visual and I am not at all. Your work is not "over my head" but your
attitude
> is.
>
> > But if it really is beyond
> > your ability to comprehend, why do try to argue against its relevance?
Is
> > that not the height of arrogant ignorance? How does that differ from the
> > illiterate plumber rejecting Special Relativity? I don't mean to offend,
I'm
> > just following the argument you are presenting. Are you really arguing
> > against the relevance of my work with no comprehension of its true
meaning?
> > What's up with this?
>
> See the following
>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I have answered and reanswered that question. Take a look at my last
posts
> > to Blake Nelson. It answered a lot of these questions again.
>
> I read the posts and they only demonstrate to me your own fascination
with your
> own theory (I eliminate "toy").
>
> Years ago there was Theomatics with the same type of raving we have from
you and
> Vernon. It came to naught.
>
> Then there was the Bible code, which also came to naught, despite the
raving and
> so called divinely inspired probabilities.
>
> Both of these made the same claim that you and Vernon do. They would prove
the
> Bible was divinely inspired. That, my friend, is an absolutely worthless
> objective when speaking to those who already believe it. There is no good
reason
> why you should fare any better than the above two and probably for the
same
> reasons.
>
> The list you sent to Blake nelson only deepened my conviction that this
has no
> value other than something for you and a few select others to occupy time.
To me
> it is not of value and I am though discussing it.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> 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 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 04:22:01 EST