> First, I would like to say that I am very pleased with the tenor of this
> conversation. My hope is that we will be able to clearly discern between
> facts and opinions, and converse long enough to agree at least on the facts.
Don't get your hopes up too much. It doesn't seem to me that a great
deal has been accomplished, especially since you've chosen to skip over most of
the points I made in my previous post.
> One of your statements helps in this regard:
> > Note that I am not claiming that this 3-fold division of the OT is
> > "inspired" or even that it's more logical than some other divisions. It
> > arbitrary, though convenient for some purposes.
> > & that's really the point of my first few objections to your whole
> > approach. It's not that your divisions are wrong but just that they are
> > arbitrary, though perhaps convenient for some classification purposes. &
> > fact that they have some tradition behind them (not nearly as monolithic a
> > tradition as you suggest) doesn't change this.
> I don't think you see how strongly your point argues for the validity of my
> thesis! Consider the simple combinatorial mathematics of the situation. What
> are the chances that anybody who takes 66 objects and combines them into
> seven ARBITRARY divisions will arrive at a structure that is both radially
> and bilaterally symmetric? I won't bore you with the details (especially
> since I haven't worked them all out yet) but I will assert that the
> probability of such a structure arising by chance is EXCEEDINGLY TINY.
Since you haven't worked this out yet there's no need for me to debate
the point but it's not at all obvious that the probability is this small.
But more to the point is the fact that you have said nothing here to
cyhallenge the point I made about the lack of theological, historical &c
rationale for your 7-fold division. This being the case, you're just doing
math. & you can do all the math you want & still won't get theology out of it.
> Yet that is but the beginning. How can we ignore the symmetric sevenfold
> structure of the Canon in light of the universally recognized Biblical
> significance of the Number Seven? And how can we ignore the theological
> significance of the line of bilateral symmetry dividing between the Aleph
> and the Tav, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet? And how can
> we ignore that all of this is going on in a book that declares itself to be
> the Word of God? The nimbus of divine associations is overwhelming!
For a start, your "7-fold structure of the canon" is an arbitrary
structure imposed upon it, as I have shown several times. & all this is "going
on" not in the Bible but in a classification scheme that you've constructed for
the books of the Bible.
> Yet there is still more! Even if we ignore the incredible sevenfold symmetry
> of the Canon, we still have to deal with the underlying structure of the 66
> books. Read my article called "A Great Cloud of Witnesses." In it, I
> demonstrate how numerous scholars, innocent of any bias towards the Wheel by
> reason of complete ignorance of it, have borne witness to the thematic
> correlations linking the books on each Spoke. Most notable is the great
> thematic river that unites Genesis, Isaiah and Romans, which constitute
> Spoke 1 of the Wheel, as detailed in the article just cited.
No doubt. There's also a literal, & yet profoundly theological,
"great thematic river" linking Genesis, Ezekiel, and John.
> Yet there is still more! The thematic correlation can be mathematically
> measured by the distribution of words throughout Scripture. A notable
> example being given in my article called "Creation." (Select Spoke 1 - Aleph
> and go to the article called Creation.) In this article I demonstrate the
> distribution of words based on the roots bara (Hebrew) and ktidzo (Greek)
> occur on Spoke 1 with a frequency that is TEN TIMES THE STANDARD DEVIATION!
> This is an example of how the _semantic content_ of Scripture correlates
> with the _geometric structure_ of the Canon.
> As a final note -- I must ask how a man with a PhD in Physics can fail to
> immediately recognize the profound significance of this symmetry, since
> symmetry is one of the most fundamental concepts that unites our study of
> God's other great work, Creation itself?
Probably because this particular physicist is also a theologian & want's
to see some theological content. Not all math symmetry is embodied in the real
world, & the fact that your classification scheme has some synmmetry doesn't
mean that it corresponds to anything of theological significance.
But let's follow up the physics analogy. Where the Omega-minus? I.e.,
does your scheme predict any novel theological result? (For non-physicists:
The correct prediction of the omega-minus particle, with strangeness minus
three, was a major factor in convincing particle physicists of the value of
Gell-Mann's SU3 symmetry scheme and ultimately the quark model.)
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
> Charis kai agape,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 17:14:06 EDT