Vernon,
What bothers me about your comments on this thread is the non sequiturs. I
think that all the regular contributors to this forum accept the truth of
Genesis 1:1. The numerical patterns in it are totally unnecessary to reach
that conclusion. To say that it implies YEC seems like quite a stretch. If
that verse gives any indication at all about the length of time involved,
it is not supportive of YEC. The author chose to use the word *reshit*,
which means a first part of something, not a first point. See what this
word means in Gen. 10:10, Job 42:12, and Jeremiah 28:1.
What would really be impressive would be if you could come up with a way
based on numerical patterns to test any text, not just Gen. 1:1, to tell
for sure whether or not it is Scripture. That would be a great boon to
textual criticism.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > > That, in a nutshell, Roger, is why I could never be anything but a YEC
> and a
> > > Christian.
> >
Received on Mon Jun 28 16:36:48 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 28 2004 - 16:36:50 EDT