Dear Vernon,
As a regular "observer/lurker" of this Calvin newsgroup, I particularly
appreciate and benefit from the insight and logic of newer contributors as
yourself. You sure give folks something fresh, testable (repeatable,
demonstratable, verifiable) and seemingly unreproducible within the limits
of man's intelligence ... augmented even with modern computer assistance.
The resistance you are encountering is but unconfirmed fluff and subjective
conjecture. Folks have the well recognized tendency to "believe" what they
want to "believe" ... and generally interpret presented evidence is such
manner as to confirm, or at least comply with, their personal
presuppositions. These in turn generally reflect their prior
educational/indoctrinational experiences.
What makes your work so interesting (and valuable) is that you provide the
actual basis upon which your findings are based. You openly invite others
(particularly your critics) to examine the data and analytical procedures
followed -- and allow them to compare their deductive conclusions as to how
best to explain the observed phenomenon against that which you so
thoughtfully present.
Would that those championing RM & NS (random mutation and natural selection)
evolutionary explanations for the appearance and accumulation of NEW,
INCREASINGLY COMPLEX, BIOLOGICALLY BENEFICIAL GENETIC CODE in a
pre-existing gene pool (as required in going from simpler single-cell gene
pool to the greater DNA content of the mammalian gene pool) be equally
scientific in presenting similar documentable evidence establishing their
position.
Thank you also for the considerable effort reflected in your several
referenced pages. They have kept me so occupied I'm hard pressed to keep up
with the greatly increased volume of (assertive, argumentative, repetitive,
ad hominum, etc -- rather than informative) messages now dominating this
reflector. But coming across input like yours certainly makes it well worth
the effort.
Thanks again, Dave Bradbury, Former evolutionary believer, retired
engineer.
Vernon Jenkins wrote:10/1/00; 6:37pm)
> Reflectorites:
>
> Before addressing the comments of my detractors* re my claim that from
> the numerics underlying the Bible's opening words, we may infer a
> supernatural origin - and much more beside! - I thought it appropriate
> to suggest a scenario that might elucidate the situation, as we find it:
>
> For the sake of argument let us assume that - concerning his being,
> omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence - the Bible provides us with
> an introductory and correct assessment of our Creator. Then, bearing in
> mind the present state of the world (including the widespread unbelief,
> and much confusion as to what the Bible actually says), we might
> reasonably conclude that he would take extraordinary measures to protect
> the Bible - his word to man.
>
> We observe that every Hebrew and Greek word of the original documents
> which were to form the basis of all our Bible translations is also
> fairly, and naturally, interpretable as a number - this, by virtue of
> the fact that these peoples adopted schemes of alphabetic numeration
> during the closing centuries BC. Clearly, the same cannot be claimed for
> the majority of other texts; so a problem arises. How can some arbitrary
> scheme for converting words to numbers command general respect?!
>
> The biblical author - when he transmitted his words to Moses (c 1500 BC)
> - having at his command a preview of the such developments, might easily
> (for we have assumed his omnipotence) have built further information
> into these words - for the 'numeric channel' would be there, ready and
> waiting, many centuries down the line! But, what of the content of this
> 'supporting' package? Clearly, to carry any weight with a largely
> unbelieving but very knowledgeable intelligentsia, the need would be
> either, (a) to pepper the whole book with arresting features (after the
> ELS manner) and/or, (b) to focus essentially on the opening words, and
> clothe them with a unique numerical structure. But, you will ask, of
> what might 'a unique numerical structure' consist?
>
> The combination of number and form is, potentially, very powerful in
> that it is comparatively rare, completely independent of time and place,
> and immune to tampering.. Furthermore, such a structure is capable of
> being widely understood - for virtually all are able to count and
> recognise association by visual symmetry. In my paper "The Lamp" -
> available online at
>
> http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Symb.htm
>
> - I draw attention to the self-evidently unique properties of 37 and
> 91 - the difference and sum, respectively, of the cubes of 4 and 3 (ie
> 64 and 27). The first of these and its digit reverse (ie 73) are,
> respectively, 12th and 21st primes; the matching reflection in their
> order numbers is unique among the 13 million prime pairs examined; the
> product 37x73 is 2701 - 73rd triangle, and the sum of the 7 words of
> Gn.1:1; this triangle has an outline of 216, or 6x6x6 - a unique cube
> (superficial area is numerically the same, ie 6x6x6 units); 37 and 73
> are closely related geometrically (as the material at the foregoing URL
> demonstrates). The triangle representing the sum of the first 8 words
> is the 77th (ie 3003); this has 91 as a factor.
>
> A cursory examination of the biblical text reveals that the cube is a
> symbol of holiness (see 1Kings 6:20 and Rev.21:16). The presence of the
> foregoing cubes is therefore apposite to this context, as are the
> equilateral triangles - symbols of the coequal Trinity: Father, Son and
> Holy Spirit.
>
> The choice of numerical material here in the Bible's opening words -
> together with such connotations - is, I submit, sufficiently remarkable
> to draw the earnest seeker of truth to consider the many other attendant
> details more closely. (These are available online at the URLs given
> below.)
>
> In conclusion, I suggest the foregoing scenario is close to the truth of
> the matter. However, I would be interested to hear the views of others
> who - having examined the details I have provided - are able to offer a
> more reasonable explanation of the Gn.1:1 phenomena. Clearly, the claim
> I am making invites a solid rebuttal from those with atheistic leanings!
>
> In anticipation,
>
> Vernon
>
> Vernon Jenkins MSc
> [musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
> Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]
> http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
> http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
>
> * in a further posting
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 13:10:24 EDT