Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 09:14:07 EDT
See additional comments below:
eel.com> To: <email@example.com>
Sent by: cc:
asa-owner@lists. Subject: Re: Tit for Tat (Richard's challenge)?
Thank you for your thoughtful, kind, and professional response. Comments
I guess the thing that really gets to me is that I see people day after day
speculating about such things as the potential soteriological problems with
hypothetical copies of souls in alternate universes which will have no
resolution and probably little if any impact on peoples lives and
understanding of God, whereas I can not even get a hearing on my work, the
validity of which carries implications unlike anything ever seen in the
history of the world, let alone biblical studies.
Here's a general question for us (I'm not trying to be picky here; I'm
truly interested): Why would God put this pattern in place with such
subtlety and then only make it know explicitly to you at this time. What
might God be wanting to communicate?
I really understand and appreciate your point of view. God's leading is
very important, and a study like mine, which involves the large-scale
structure of the Bible and endless self-reflective patterns within it, with
hundreds of pages of online documentation, certainly can seem intimidating.
But the idea that it would require "hours of time to study" my data before
being able to get an idea if there might or might not be something to it is
not really accurate. As mentioned above, the primary thesis is exceedingly
simple and easy to validate. The existence of the multiple high-level
theologically significant patterns should be enough to trigger anybody's
interest, unless there is an invincible prejudice against the possibility
of the divine design of Scripture.
The pattern is there, sure, but how many other patterns could be
"discovered" as alternative constructions? It does take time to assess how
compelling the evidence is that this was a divinely ordained structure.
I am sorry to see that you think you have a handle on my "epistemological
and apologetic approach" considering the fact that we have yet to even
discuss it. I hope you will take the time to learn that my "evidentialist"
approach may not be what you think it is. :-) I think this would make a
very interesting discussion.
And this brings up the "apologetic value" that you question. Who said God
put this pattern in Scripture as an apologetic? Maybe he did, maybe he
didn't. But I have never suggested that an unbeliever would benefit from a
faithless the study of the Wheel. An unbeliever must repent and believe the
Gospel. I would have no reason to believe that anyone could see, let alone
appreciate, the beauty and glory in the divine structure of God's Holy Word
if they have yet to see and believe in Christ who is its central theme and
purpose! On the other hand, it certainly is striking, and I see no reason
God could not use it for His evangelical purposes. Actually, it does seem
ideally suited to answer many problems unbelievers have with Scripture.
I will fully admit that I was only guessing or presuming at the
significance that you derive from your discovery. If I am not accurate,
please do me the favor to explain what meaning you derive from this new
knowledge about the structure (again, I am truly interested). I assumed
that for you its significance lies in its being compelling evidence for God
and his divine inspiration of scripture. If that is not the meaning or
"take-home message" you derive from it, please explain what is. For myself,
whether or not I would invest time and energy studying your evidence
depends on the answer to this question. Please explain more about how you
envision this knowledge and evidence being used to "answer many problems
unbelievers have with Scripture".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 09:21:45 EDT