Standing miracle? (was ' Evolution: A few questions')

Thanks for these comments, Gordon. However, like George, you seem anxious to
take my view of Genesis 1:1 'as read' and rush on to the implications, as I
have voiced them. As a mathematician you are of course well-placed to offer
an expert opinion on the numerical wealth and quality of the data to which I
refer. Perhaps you would like to comment on this particular matter. Is my
claim of 'standing miracle' reasonable, or not? - and if not, why not?

Vernon,
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: 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 Sun Jun 27 17:09:16 2004