Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Mon Aug 20 2001 - 17:29:35 EDT

  • Next message: Vandergraaf, Chuck: "RE: Is Jonah to be taken literally?"


    I'm off on a holiday tomorrow - so am unable to give your reply the full
    attention it deserves. However, I will deal with just one point if I
    may. You said, "I didn't mean to question the Scriptures, but only to
    give some examples. To me, I have no problem accepting a talking donkey
    or a floating axe head but my scientific curiosity makes me curious
    ("nosy"?) in that I wish I could have been there to observe this. Don't
    you wish you could have been present to taste the wine that Jesus made,
    not to prove that it was wine, but to share in the miracle?"

    Indeed, I would like to have witnessed this miracle, but as you will
    already know, I claim the related numerics of Genesis 1:1, John 1:1 and
    Creator's name to be a 'standing miracle' - so I already have some
    experience of the Lord's capabilities in this area. However, few seem
    prepared to share this wonder with me! As I recently wrote to Allan

    "As you will have observed, no one is willing - or able - to challenge
    my OBC (Other Bible Code) thesis from the Scriptures; but neither is
    anyone prepared to discuss the possible meaning and significance of the
    facts uncovered. A body of empirical data thus goes begging - a
    situation that must be unique in the annals of science: man's natural
    curiosity stifled; a body of Christians (by definition, 'seekers after
    truth') wanting nothing to do with tangible evidence of the supernatural
    and of God's abilities. Unbelievable! - but worse, the said body
    preferring to busy themselves with softer, more entertaining, more
    rewarding even, options like dismantling the Scriptures!"

    I asked Allan (or anyone, for that matter) if he had an answer to this
    enigma. So far, there has been no response. Perhaps you would care to
    pick up the gauntlet, for I think you must agree that the phenomena - if
    not miraculous - deserve a logical explanation from one of the
    scientists on this list; otherwise the standing of their discipline -
    and of rational thought itself - dies.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 20 2001 - 17:29:28 EDT