Re: Gematria, history of gematria, mathematical coincidences, Vernon's hypothesis

Hello Walt,

That is a great observation, and one which I knew would have to be addressed
at some stage. The answer lies somewhere in the vast meaning of your choice
of words 'Christian belief'. For thousands of years belief and faith have
been the only port of entry into a relationship with God. But every so often
in the history of mankind there comes a new stage in that relationship.
Consider for a moment the experience of the children of Israel on leaving
Egypt and at Sinai. They were given the most awesome display of God's power
there has ever been, short of rising from the dead of course. They did not
need faith in the way that all subsequent generations have needed it. If
someone comes to God on the basis of faith alone then the value of that
relationship is surely beyond value. You are probably right that these new
revelations may add nothing to common Christian belief as we have known it.
So there must be some other explanation for why these signs have been given.
Some people need signs (fingers in the nail holes and all that). The answer
may have something to do with the present stage in our history. Has anyone
considered that Islamist suicide bombings are actually the complete
antithesis of Christ's message and values (for example). These are the signs
of the times. So, if the more benign signs in Genesis should be a more
direct route to knowing God for some people, should we not be helping them
to recognise this new possibility?

Regards
David

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyshoes" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
To: "David Bradford" <david.bradford1@which.net>
Cc: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Gematria, history of gematria, mathematical coincidences,
Vernon's hypothesis

> Hi David
>
> I for one do not have many insights into what Vernon has done. My
> problem is that I am not at all visual and all of the geometrical
> figures mean nothing to me. I have no idea how various numbers may be
> configured as such and how unusual this may be.
>
> So let us say that we take all of this as being a "true miracle". Where
> I get stuck is, what does it mean? If one cannot articulate a meaning
> for this, then I am inclined to say that maybe it is coincidence. If
> all that it does (as Vernon says) is to confirm that the Bible is the
> word of God, then it adds nothing to common Christian belief.
>
> IMO
>
> Walt
>
>
> David Bradford wrote:
>
> > DaveI can only speak for myself when I say that I will never 'slough
> > off' something that I have not afforded some careful consideration. As
> > an English speaker, I am finding it hard enough learning and applying
> > biblical Hebrew without attempting to do the same with Arabic and
> > another large text. I think it behoves our Muslim counterparts to
> > engage in the debate on the Koran. But they will have to be patient
> > and expect to wait a while for we Christians to get up to speed. My
> > immediate interest is in identifying the extra level of meaning that
> > the Author of Torah has put there for someone to find specifically in
> > Jewish year 5765 (in other words, right now). The Old Testament is
> > important to me as an essential platform for my faith, where the Koran
> > is not. I'm not even sure whether the Koran is even compatible with
> > the entire OT. You will discover that I take a rather different view
> > of the Torah compared with my view on other parts of the Bible, and
> > also from most non-Jews. Those particular five books are not just
> > divinely inspired; they were dictated letter-for-letter by God to
> > Moses on Mt.Horeb, during the 40 days he was there. I can't show my
> > justification for this belief just yet, as it is not assembled into a
> > publishable form. But rest assured, within the next few weeks I will
> > be vigorously advertising my website and asking for properly reasoned
> > feedback. What I can say is that Vernon's findings are too well
> > structured and elaborate not to be real, and I find it absurd for
> > otherwise rational scientific minds (speaking generally) to dismiss
> > them by focussing on isolated aspects. They come as a structured
> > package and should be assessed as a package. Indeed, Vernon's findings
> > fall short of being the full package, as I shall demonstrate in the
> > near future. The important question is not so much whether the
> > structures he has found are deliberately designed, as whether it is
> > within the abilities of man to have done so. By all means make a
> > judgement on those grounds. But I ask you not to reach any irrevokable
> > conclusions until I have the opportunity to present the other side of
> > the coin. Why is a numerical analysis of Genesis relevant? It is
> > because this is probably the most important discovery for Christians
> > and Jews for many a long century, and if we do not seek then we sure
> > as **** won't find. RegardsDavid
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> > To: david.bradford1@which.net
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 12:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Gematria, history of gematria, mathematical
> > coincidences, Vernon's hypothesis
> > Before engaging in a time-consuming analysis of Vernon's
> > claims, I'd like to know why the numerical analysis of
> > Genesis is relevant, and the analysis of the Koran can be
> > sloughed off? Ed has noted an extensive analysis of the
> > latter.Dave On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:02:12 +0100 "David
> > Bradford" <david.bradford1@which.net> writes in part:
> >
> > On ED's final point about 'hits' and 'misses', I
> > would like to ask where the contributors to this
> > site would elect to set the threshold between an
> > acceptable coincidence and an unacceptable
> > coincidence. As Bacon suggested, people are often
> > fooled because they like the look of the hits and
> > ignore the misses. So what should we think if
> > there are no misses? Even then one hit out of one
> > would still not be very convincing. 5/5 might
> > start to raise eyebrows. And 20/20 hits would
> > surely exceed any reasonable threshold. Vernon
> > Jenkins' findings I suggest belong to the third
> > category and constitute strong, perhaps
> > overwhelming evidence for deliberate design in the
> > early part of Genesis. I would certainly value
> > seeing a well thought-out, formal critique that
> > addresses VJ's findings as a package, an
> > assessment worthy of consideration by the
> > scientific community. I have seen in a different
> > thread that Vernon has, at least temporarily,
> > taken a step back from insisting on drawing
> > certain unpopular conclusions from his results.
> > This should give everyone enough space to assess
> > the 'facts' without prejudice to any particular
> > doctrinal position. So, come on, let's see what
> > collective ASA grey matter is capable of!
> > Regards
> > David
> > _________________
> > David S. Bradford
> >
> --
> ===================================
> 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)
> ===================================
>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 7 19:03:14 2004