Re: Evolution: A few questions

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> Genesis 1:1 is not only a strategically-placed, powerful and fundamental
> assertion but is, in the original Hebrew, a numerical goldmine - its 7 words
> and 28 letters revealing significant features of coordinated numerical
> geometries and strong links with the Creator's name, with the intriguing
> number 666 (Rev.13:18), with 2 of the primary fundamental constants (pi and
> alpha), with the metric dimensions of the A4 size of cut paper, and much
> else. Without doubt, this concise verse is a miracle 'set in stone', and
> intended to convey a serious message - particularly to those of us involved
> in this debate on origins.
>
>
>
> These facts convince me that what follows must be _revealed truth_ - for why
> would a Creator, capable of such wonders, wish to mislead us!? In
> particular, therefore, the Creation and Flood narratives must be taken as
> read, along with the antediluvian genealogies. But, of course, the
> implications of Genesis 1:1 don't just end there; they must extend to the
> remainder of the Book.
>
>
>
> That, in a nutshell, Roger, is why I could never be anything but a YEC and a
> Christian.

Vernon,

I doubt that anyone on this list other than you can follow your reasoning
to reach your conclusion.

Consider the prominent proponents of the inspiration, authority,
inerrancy, etc. of the Bible. Did any of these people reach that
conclusion based on some connection between Gen. 1:1 and the number of the
Beast? Why is it that so many of these people were not YECs? Do you think
that they were not honest in their defense of the Scriptures? Even most
YECs in history did not subscribe to flood geology. It is of relatively
recent origin. The Flood narrative taken as read does not support it.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
Received on Thu Jun 24 16:17:00 2004