From: Vernon Jenkins <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Word order (was Powers that Be (was Year of Destiny?!))
>Let me first assure you that I am indeed in earnest: my comment was
>neither 'ad hoc' nor 'irrelevant'. Rather than first absorbing the
>broader picture, you seem intent on focussing on just one of many
>interesting details associated with the Bible's opening verse -
>completely ignoring the rest!
>Having spent many years researching these matters, and convinced they
>can only be of supernatural origin, I firmly believe they are intended
>to accomplish some serious purpose in our day. Your objections
>concerning word order, therefore - while appearing to be reasonable -
>are, on this understanding, irrelevant.
>As I am attempting to point out on these lists, the time for debating
>whether or not there is a God is over. He has revealed His Presence and
>Sovereignty in terms that all but the wilfully ignorant may understand,
>viz a body of empirical evidence - closely integrated with God's word -
>that is completely free from evolutionary bias!
>Dave, may I suggest that you examine the complete crop of 'coincidences'
>associated with Genesis 1:1 and Creator's Name. You may then agree that
>comments made in my last posting makes sense.
>> You wrote:
>> But has it not occurred to you that
>> the English translations of these Hebrew words are undoubtedly the most
>> widely read of all. I suggest this fact, in itself, might well be
>> interpreted as evidence of an Omniscient and Omipotent Creator
>> specifically targeting generations that appear to have completely lost
>> touch with Him!
>> This leaves me even more bothered, for it is so patently ad hoc and
>> irrelevant that I find it hard to accept that you sent it. Is someone
>> falsely using your name? I have heard that there is that kind of
>> shenanigans going on.
>> But if you are in earnest, why should we abandon the Hebrew word order
>> for one that only became "relevant" millennia later? Would it not be
>> better to go with the Vulgate, which dominated a wider part of
>> Christendom from the time of Jerome until this century? It has the same
>> word order, though with different words, as the Hebrew: "in principio
>> creavit Deus caelum et terram." Or was Jerome outside the control of the
>> omnipotent and omniscient Lord? 15 centuries less than 3? Why disdain the
>> more ancient LXX? But I return to my original questions: is not any word
>> order other than the Hebrew totally irrelevant? Do not 1+2 or 1+2+3 have
>> numerical precedence over 1+3 and 2+4+5?