In a message dated 9/27/2000 7:10:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
> Hi Chris,
> I checked and rechecked. What is written below is by you -- and about
> someone else!!!! If I were to answer your posts I couldn't have said it
> better. Amazing!!! It does seem to support your belief that in nature
> everything that is possible happens. In all that verbiage a refutation of
> you own position was bound to eventually appear.
>
>
Chris has focused quite carefully and aptly on the crux of the matter. In
order for the thesis to hold one has to show that the Bible is special in
this sense and that the found numerology was planted there not by human
intervention. For a while the Bible codes were considered evidence for God's
design but when similar 'predictions' were found in many other books it had
to be quickly abandoned. I do not understand your conclusions about Chris but
I do realize that you do not address his comments. I therefore assume that
you agree with him?
> >Chris:
> >Hi. I visited your sites, and looked at a couple of the pieces. I'm
> >impressed with the sheer amount of stuff you have, but not with its
> claimed
> >evidentiary value. This is because this sort of thing can be done with
> >almost *anything*. You could easily "prove" the truth of the "Lord of the
> >Rings" trilogy by this means, or you could *prove* that the claims of the
> >Koran are true by the same method. It's just too easy for a person with a
> >little familiarity with mathematics to come up with these kinds of
> >"evidence." Since the same method can just as easily be used to "prove"
> >things that are clearly false or even nonsensical, as well as things one
> >might think true, I conclude that it's not a valid method of proving
> >things, or of validating them at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 12:08:03 EDT