The remark in question can hardly be interpreted as an attack on Todd's
character; it was intended simply to state the obvious, for he makes no
secret of the fact that he is an 'old earther'.
In supporting Todd's suggestion that I undertake a detailed analysis of
other texts you are revealing, yet again, that you have not bothered to
examine and ponder the evidence I have provided - this based upon the
fair reading of OT Hebrew and NT Greek as sets of numbers. Your 'Moby
Dick' idea, of course, is completely 'out of court' - there being no
historical precedent for reading English letters and words as numbers.
It is important that one keeps in mind the probability of the observed
phenomena not being of supernatural origin, ie 1 in 10 billion. This is
roughly equivalent to turning up the same number in 12 consecutive
throws of a fair die, or of obtaining only 'heads' (or 'tails') in 33
consecutive tosses of a coin. Is it really wise of you to take the
John W Burgeson wrote:
> Vernon, you wrote:
> "Todd, clearly you are a man who "...hears not Moses..." (Luke 16:31);
> indeed, one deeply committed to preaching a completely different message.
> This is clearly an "ad hominem" remark, and is much unlike you. While you
> know I am among those, like Todd and George and Howard and ... , who
> regard your findings as being of mild interest but hardly of import, I
> have always noted that you are most gentlemanly in your posts here. Not
> so the above.
> What Todd suggested, similar analyses of books clearly not regarded as
> sacred in any way, seems quite rational to me, and if I believed in your
> thesis as much as you do, I'd do it as a falsification exercise. If, for
> example, you found a similar pattern in, say, MOBY DICK, or in
> Shakespeare's HAMLET, this would probably weaken your arguments
> John Burgeson (Burgy)
> (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
> humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 29 2001 - 18:28:29 EDT