Before responding to your question, I would like to be assured that you
have closely examined the material in question. Clearly, we can't
discuss these matters in a vacuum!
Pim van Meurs wrote:
> To Vernon:
> What rules out 1) coincidence 2) the original writers or translators adding 'numerology'?
You'll have to show that neither applies.
> From: Vandergraaf, Chuck[SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 1:01 PM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Year of Destiny?!
> Thank you for gently pointing out my error in my comment about the "leap
> month." However, I am still not convinced of the significance of the
> numbers 5760 and 2000.
> > ----------
> > From: Vernon Jenkins[SMTP:email@example.com]
> > Reply To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 1999 4:17 PM
> > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: Year of Destiny?!
> > Friends,
> > By way of a general response to comments concerning my recent posting,
> > let me say:
> > (1) It is not possible to assess the significance of the impending
> > conjunction of the numbers 5760 and 2000 in isolation. The matter must
> > set in the broader context of the world situation and information
> > reported earlier concerning certain key words and passages in the
> > original Hebrew and Greek of the biblical text. [Readers with no
> > knowledge of this background material are invited to refer to the URLs
> > below.]
> > (2) By labelling the derivation of such information 'numerology' many
> > appear to be missing the point. Neither Christian nor Jew should find it
> > too hard to believe that God - to further His eternal purposes - could,
> > or would, act in this way in writings they believe to have been inspired
> > by Him. For those who deny the supernatural, the phenomena in question
> > have to be attributable to chance or human conspiracy - contentions
> > which are readily rebutted! [Is it any wonder that these would want the
> > matter consigned to oblivion?!] Those (of either category) unwilling or
> > afraid to examine the evidence clearly can have nothing worthwhile to
> > contribute to the current discussion!
> > (3) The point that is being missed by so many people is that the
> > empirical data referred to rest on the soundest of foundations, viz
> > mathematics per se, ie the understanding that certain numbers, in
> > themselves, possess interesting or unique properties, but which are also
> > meaningful in respect of biblical text and symbolism.
> > Let me close by addressing remarks to particular individuals:
> > To Glenn: The numerical phenomena residing in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1
> > and the Greek of the Lord's Name can hardly be erased! They are living
> > testimony to the being and sovereignty of our God, and to the fact that
> > he holds the whole of history in his hands!
> > To Chuck: The basis of the Jewish calendar is the lunar month; to
> > achieve sync with the solar year it is necessary to insert an extra
> > month from time to time. See http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm for
> > further details.
> > To Susan: I have the impression that you are one who declines to view
> > the evidence referred to above. Why not do that and provide an
> > explanation in naturalistic terms?
> > To Darren: In my book, anything that impinges on the matter of origins
> > can be thrown into the ring in these lists. Some Jews really believe the
> > age of the earth to be 5760 years!
> > To Gordon: I think we have to accept things as they are now. You clearly
> > acknowledge that God is freely able to achieve his purposes - whether or
> > not these include human error!
> > Vernon
> > http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
> > http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
> <<File: ATT00000.html>>