From: Alexanian, Moorad (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:10:18 EDT
Whenever I teach the notion of gravitation and how it affects objects
with mass/energy, free falling or otherwise, I draw a straight line on
the black (green) board to denote the surface of the earth. Should I
start drawing that line curved?
From: Michael Roberts [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 AM
To: Iain Strachan; Don Winterstein; Vernon Jenkins
Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
The earth is flat as well!! If you look at V's site you find convoluted
nonsense rather than the vague numbers you get in the bible
----- Original Message -----
From: Iain Strachan <mailto:email@example.com>
To: Don Winterstein <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> ; Vernon
Cc: asa <mailto:email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: The forgotten verses
Some time ago I wrote in response to one of your posts,
"So I now say to God, '.........If you think your numerical tricks are
going to impress me, we need to have a long talk.'" You questioned the
relevance of that sentence.
Perhaps I can respond with a question to you. I know the idea
of there being numerical tricks hidden in the biblical texts sounds
barmy. When I was first told about it (by an atheist maths professor,
not Vernon), I found the idea both repugnant and distasteful. I tried
to ignore it (I was only interested in studying classical music). But
on finding Vernon's site, I was bound to admit that something much more
detailed and obviously "planned" was being described than anything I'd
seen in classical music.
But I still don't know what it's for. I'd like to have a long
talk with God & ask him why he allowed me to go on this journey that
leads to my fellow Christians calling me a sucker for looking at
But here's a question for you. Let's get this away from
Vernon's thesis that it somehow proves young earth etc, and take for
granted that the Universe is 13 billion years old, or whatever current
best estimates are. Given that, I would certainly want to know why God
should tell me to labour and do all my work in six days and then rest on
the seventh, ostensibly for the repeatedly given reason that this is
because He also created everything also in six days and rested on the
seventh. Since six days clearly doesn't equal 13 billion years, the
reason given is blatantly false.
So like it or not, you're forced down the road of saying that
God deals with us via symbolic numbers (e.g. the six days "symbolises"
The alternative is to say to God "If you think I should work 6+1
because you say you created everything 6+1 then we need to have a long
The relevance is this, that there are so many other,
more effective ways that God could have demonstrated his power and love
than by secreting numerical tricks in his inspired texts.
Surely it is not for us to decide how God should have done His
work & I don't believe you can ignore empirical data (such as presented
by Vernon), simply because you personally don't believe that is the best
way for God to do it.
I'd also point out that Paul says in I Cor 1:20-25 that the
gospel of Christ crucified appears to be foolishness to the gentiles and
a stumbling block to the Jews. I'm sure if you thought about it you
could think of a better way to do it than that. For example, the
Moonies believe that Christ was supposed to have got married and started
a line of sinless descendents to lead us all back to Eden. If that had
happened, the world certainly wouldn't be in the mess it was today. But
instead, the core of our faith is this "foolish" crucifixion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:10:36 EDT