Thanks for your response.
However, having commented on my work (and his) in your original posting
to Richard McGough, and said, "...(it is) probably worth discussing in
a graceful, rational, theologically informed way.", I am somewhat
surprised to find in your more recent "Is Jonah..." posting the
"I suppose there is some (lesser) harm if Christians are seen as
believing something silly, even if they make clear that the belief is
not essential. Just as we should be willing to suffer for Christ but
not suffer as wrongdoers, we should embrace the 'foolishness of the
gospel' but eschew other, unrelated foolishness as a poor witness.
Geocentrism and 144-hour creationism would be in that category; from
some perspectives some other things under discussion here (like not
seeing Jonah as a story, opposition to the theory of evolution,
Biblical numerology) might also qualify."
So much for a "graceful, rational, theologically informed" approach! It
would appear that you have already decided the matter - and given it a
'thumbs down'. I am disappointed. I was expecting some cogent argument -
based on sound scriptural principles and simple logic - that would force
me to dig deeper and/or seriously consider the wisdom of what I was
doing. Instead, you appear to lean on blind prejudice and imply some
link with the occult!
The phenomena I describe are realities. They honour and glorify God and
his Son, Jesus Christ; further, they appear to have some significant
purpose for our day. Who put these things in place (and, in Rv.13:18,
drew attention to them), if not God himself?
Concerning 'signs', you said: "This Christian is thinking about the
harsh words Jesus had about those who seek after signs. And I'm also
thinking about how Jesus spoke of the uselessness of signs for those who
are in rebellion against God."
I think you must agree that signs have formed a significant role in
God's dealings with man. No one sought the sign of the OBC (Other Bible
Code); like so many of the signs recorded in the Scriptures, it has been
offered gratuitously. Concerning your final point, you might like to
read the Lord's appeal to those who refused to believe his words
(Jn.10:37,38). He says, "Believe anyway, because of the miracles."
Allan Harvey wrote:
> There are aspects here for others to answer (or ignore, as they see
> fit in
> their own stewardship of their time and energy).
> I just wanted to mention that my original statement does not encompass
> several of the thngs Vernon does. I mentioned the legitimacy (or,
> lack therof) of trying to find mathematical patterns in:
> 1) The Scriptures as originally written
> 2) Seemingly arbitrary things humans have done to Scripture, such as
> divisions, assignment of numbers to Hebrew and Greek letters,
> groupings of
> books, etc.)
> Vernon, in his work (and item #5 in his latest message) brings in yet
> a third
> 3) Numerical aspects of arbitrary human decisions unrelated to the
> such as the measures of the SI system and the dimensions of A4 paper.
> Of course the same questions of legitimacy can be asked with regard to
> category #3. But it seems that, as one goes from (1) to (2) to (3),
> one is
> moving farther away from the Word of God, and therefore the burden of
> becomes larger on the one who is trying to prove ultimate significance
> in the
> mathemetical patterns.
> Vernon also said:
> "No thinking Christian can deny the need for some 'sign' in our
> day that would restore the Authority of the Scriptures, and remind man
> of the Being and Sovereignty of God."
> This Christian is thinking about the harsh words Jesus had about those
> seek after signs. And I'm also thinking about how Jesus spoke of the
> uselessness of signs for those who are in rebellion against God.
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 14 2001 - 20:29:57 EDT