From: Vernon Jenkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 19:15:15 EDT
I had hoped you would consider it important that we factored in to our
deliberations vis-a-vis how things began what the Scriptures have to say
about the nature of those who so deliberate.
Regarding the numbers: I see them as fulfilling a complementary role in
confirming the text to be divinely-inspired - and that, surely, can be no
bad thing. Indeed, I believe the numbers serve to enhance the ability of the
text to stimulate awe and worship.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <email@example.com>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "D. F. Siemens, Jr."
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
> Having watched discussions of this sort many times on this list, here's a
> simple observation: With all of this obsession with numerology and with
> all of this zeal for statistical cherry picking, the concern to find
> for living a good life enriched with a keen awareness of the Sacred seems
> have faded into the background. What a sad irony if the text has become
> important for its ability to generate numbers than for its ability to
> stimulate awe or worship.
> Howard Van Till
> >From: "Vernon Jenkins" <email@example.com>
> >To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Cc: <email@example.com>
> >Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
> >Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2003, 7:13 PM
> > Dave,
> > I'm currently digesting your response to my recent posting. For now, let
> > just challenge your closing words, "I simply go by the text." -
> > your belief that the Hebrews of Solomon's day believed pi to be 3 - a
> > deduction based upon the data provided by II Chronicles 4:2. But you
> > realise there is ambiguity here. All real cylinders have an inner
> > (d, say) and an outer diameter (D, say); an inner circumference (c, say)
> > an outer circumference (C, say). Does "...ten cubits from brim to
> > represent d or D? Does "...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round
> > about." represent c or C?
> > You must therefore agree that the data here provided is insufficient to
> > support your claim. It needs the additional information given in verse 5
> > the same chapter to bring the solution a little closer. Here we are told
> > "And the thickness of it (the cylinder wall) was an handbreadth..." (t,
> > say). A 'handbreadth' is defined as a measure of four fingers, equal to
> > about four inches, and a 'cubit' as the distance from elbow to to the
> > the longest finger of a man - about 18 inches.
> > Clearly, pi may be determined as either of the ratios c/d or C/D, but
> > c/D or C/d. Thus, only by reading the 30 cubits as the _inner_
> > (c), and the 10 cubits as the outer diameter (D) do we make sense of the
> > data, thus:
> > d = D - 2xt = 10x18 - 2x4 = 180 - 8 = 172 inches
> > c = 30x18 = 540 inches
> > pi = 540/172 = 3.14 (which we recognise as a commonly used
> > for pi).
> > There can be little doubt that the intrinsic ambiguities associated with
> > IIChr.2:4 are here satisfactorily resolved, and why anyone should, (a)
> > believed the Hebrews incapable of detecting a 4.5% error in the value of
> > (by assuming it to be 3 rather than its true value), and (b) have
> > that Egyptian knowledge of this constant would have stopped short of its
> > border with Israel, is really beyond understanding - unless, of course,
> > principal motive was the undermining of the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures.
> > Vernon
> > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: <email@example.com>
> > Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 5:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
> >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:10:16 +0100 "Vernon Jenkins"
> >> <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> > Dave,
> >> >
> >> > You appear to overlook the principal reason for my last writing to
> >> > Michael.
> >> > It was to point to the fundamental matter of man's essential nature
> >> > as it is
> >> > presented in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures; and, arising from
> >> > that,
> >> > whether it is reasonable to believe that his (man's) overturning of
> >> > God's
> >> > account of how things actually began can possibly carry any
> >> > conviction. I
> >> > suggest that until that matter is understood, and settled, no real
> >> > meaning
> >> > can be attached to the detailed evidence driving the current debate.
> >> > An
> >> > associated consideration, of course, is man's tendency to discount
> >> > the
> >> > supernatural; to look only to 'natural' explanations.
> >> >
> >> Correction: I did not overlook your "principal reason," I ignored it as
> >> irrelevant and irrational. I once believed much as you do, until the
> >> delivered me from such lies about what the scriptures and his creation
> >> teach. I discovered that geological dating might be off by a factor of
> >> more than two, not by 6 orders of magnitude. I recognize that you think
> >> that this makes me discount the supernatural. I do not, for I rest in
> >> constant care and concern of my Lord.
> >> > Dave, perhaps you would like to address my concerns with respect to
> >> > these
> >> > matters.
> >> >
> >> > Let me now briefly turn to what you have chosen to call
> >> > 'numerological
> >> > drivel'. You are hardly suggesting that the numbers I find in the
> >> > Scriptures - express and implied - are merely figments of my
> >> > imagination.
> >> > Have you, therefore, no desire to inquire why they are there? A
> >> > careful
> >> > examination of the facts reveals they are undoubtedly of
> >> > supernatural
> >> > origin - and one thus infers they are intended to accomplish some
> >> > serious
> >> > purpose. I claim no personal advantage for seeing a clear message in
> >> > the
> >> > numbers - but I do consider it strangely ostrich-like for any
> >> > numerate
> >> > intellectual Christian to brush these aside as completely
> >> > inconsequential.
> >> > Are you really presuming to deny our Creator the right to use
> >> > whatever means
> >> > He considers appropriate to safeguard His Word?
> >> >
> >> Your question on this matter assumes that the current state of the
> >> scriptural text is inerrantly inspired and preserved in its present
> >> state. I know enough about the text to recognize this assumption to be
> >> false, for there is not a single version of most passages. So the basis
> >> of your analysis is flawed. Further, I recall one place where you
> >> the word order of the text in order to make things come out right.
> >> Further, if you were discovering the handiwork of deity, then the
> >> would show up exactly in every word, clause, sentence, paragraph and
> >> book. There would be no exceptions.
> >> Additionally, there is no benefit to a walk with God to the stuff you
> >> out. If anything, it advances pride, which is hardly a virtue. When I
> >> referred to "numerological drivel" it was to avoid using an earthier
> >> term.
> >> > By the way, your belief that the engineers of Solomon's day believed
> >> > pi to
> >> > equal 3 is utter nonsense - if only on the basis that the pyramid
> >> > builders
> >> > were near neighbours - and the early Hebrews had spent a long time
> >> > in
> >> > Egypt.. However, a closer reading of II Chronicles 4:2, 5 and a
> >> > more
> >> > sympathetic approach to the data adequately proves the point.
> >> >
> >> > Vernon
> >> > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
> >> >
> >> I simply go by the text.
> >> Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 19:15:45 EDT