Re: Watershed

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 19:16:27 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Watershed"

    M.B.Roberts wrote:
    > Vernon
    > I am sorry but I find your treatment of the Bible misguided and
    > offensive. I did once refer your work to the unrude and not unlearned
    > and got a ribald response.

    Bearing in mind that I deal only in self-evident truths, I am at a loss
    to know why any 'lover of truth' (the Lord's definition of any committed
    follower of his) should regard my efforts as 'misguided' and
    'offensive'. Perhaps you can explain this anomaly. Regarding your
    'unrude and not unlearned' friend, his response can hardly be regarded
    as authoritative, for I doubt whether he ever examined the facts.

    > I am sure your time would be better spent teaching the bible in a run
    > down Welsh church or chapel (tautologous as most are run-down as the
    > church is very weak in Wales.) and do so simply - "Tell me the stories
    > of Jesus " etc etc.

    Thanks for the advice. However, it might be more profitable to first
    inquire why it is that there are so many 'run-down' chapels in Wales.
    Could it be, perhaps, that preaching the Gospel from the pulpit is no
    longer in vogue; that the shepherds in general are more sensitive to
    wordly fashion than to the spiritual needs of their flocks?
    > There is a right and a wrong use of our intellect to understand our
    > faith. I am afraind that my Welsh Churchwarden would say your work is
    > "hen glonc" - North Welsh for old rubbish or something similar.

    It's hardly right that you should put words into the mouth of your Welsh
    Churchwarden. You might like to explain what you mean by 'old rubbish or
    something similar'. But try reading 'The Other Bible Code' pages first!


    Vernon wrote earlier
    > > I take your point about the Bible being for the 'rude and unlearned'.
    > > However, presumably they believe what they read! This cannot be said of
    > > the sophisticated and learned, as I think you must agree. I believe that
    > > it is to such as these that the numerical phenomena are directed. And
    > > while you may not personally be readily conversant with these constants
    > > (which are principally of interest to mathematicians, scientists and
    > > engineers), I believe you are capable of responding positively to the
    > > extreme unlikelihood of such famous entities appearing in Gen.1:1 and
    > > John 1:1.
    > >
    > > My hope is that you have not rendered yourself unteachable in respect of
    > > the scriptures. The letters and words of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
    > > originals really do have an uncontrived numerical dimension - though I
    > > doubt that this would be stressed in any Bible college; possibly, not
    > > even mentioned! As I see it, these numbers which underpin the text were
    > > as much planned by God as the words themselves; the evidence of that
    > > fact is apparent in the numerical phenomena associated with the Bible's
    > > first verse. Significantly, by so doing, the Creator has provided the
    > > Bible with self-authenticating powers - apparent only to those who will
    > > allow reason to be their guide!
    > >
    > > May I suggest that no Christian should throw his intellect overboard
    > > when confronted with self-evident truths that appear to threaten his
    > > beliefs.
    > >
    > > By the way, I happen to be Welsh.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Vernon
    > >
    > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 19:16:44 EDT