Re: Watershed

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Sun Jun 24 2001 - 20:34:15 EDT

  • Next message: Tim Ikeda: "Re: Ikedaian Cabalism"


    Thanks for your further observations. If this must be the last word, I
    will take it.

    > Vernon - I have not responded on behalf of Michael or anyone else. My
    > point was to show the conclusions to which your claim of
    > "self-evident" truth must lead. I'm sorry that you don't follow the
    > argument. I don't get the impression that you've tried to very hard.

    I think I follow the argument well enough. What troubles me is that
    neither you nor Michael seems prepared to countenance God moving in some
    spectacular way in our day. As I see it, you are determined to close
    your eyes and ears to such a possibility. Is this the result of a divine
    promise you find written into the scriptures, or simply wishful thinking
    on your part? I am unaware of any such a promise, and it therefore
    follows that you are wrong to make this a foundation stone of your
    Christian faith. My understanding is that God is sovereign, and can do
    as and what he likes when he likes. Further, his actions are hardly to
    be determined by what 'the clay' considers appropriate and respectable
    behaviour for the 'potter'.
    > The logical flaw in your arguments is obvious. Scripture is inspired
    > but the numerical values which people assigned to the letters of
    > the Hebrew and Greek alphabets isn't.

    How can you pretend to speak with such authority? You will find
    Revelation 13:18 strongly suggests otherwise.

    > Much less is there any reason to consider the formula you use, X =
    > [(product of letters x) # (of letters)]/[(product of words) x (# of
    > words)], to have any significance. It's mildly interesting that you
    > can find pi and e from it...

    The formula, though arbitrary, is simple, as I think you must agree. It
    produces pi and e from textually parallel verses (each foundational for
    the Christian, and each occupying strategic positions in the biblical
    text); in addition, these verses display significant geometrical links
    accompanied by powerful symbolism. I think any reasonable observer
    acquainted with the facts would regard your comment, "mildly
    interesting", as a big joke! Do you really seriously regard a 1 in 10
    billion longshot to be a safe bet?!! Surely you must agree that with
    chance and human contrivance out of the running the only show in town is
    supernatural agency! Come, now, you must bend and admit this to be an
    example of divine and purposeful design.

    > The theological error is more serious. I'm sure you don't intend
    > this, but the type of argument you present obscures the Christian
    > message by implying that there is a higher type of knowledge than that
    > of the gospel.

    Nothing of the kind. The words and the numbers are all in the same
    package, are they not? What we are witnessing is the emergence of
    additional information that is complementary to the Gospel.

    > I am not "worried" by your claims. I would be if I thought that
    > anyone would take them seriously but that's unlikely. I do think it's
    > unfortunate that you wasting so much time pursuing these illusions.

    How can you still regard these empirical data as illusions? I suggest
    they are far more solid than any so-called 'proof' of evolution that
    Michael and yourself so readily accept without question. At the root of
    your objections there is, I believe, some fear concerning where all this
    may take us. The late Carl Sagan in his TV series 'Cosmos' once famously
    remarked, "We will follow the truth - no matter where it leads." To be
    strictly honest, of course, he should have added, "...provided it leads
    in the right direction."

    Would that be a fair summary of your own sentiments?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 24 2001 - 20:37:08 EDT