Standing miracle?

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Sat Jun 26 2004 - 17:50:23 EDT

Thanks for these views, George. But rather than proceeding on too broad a front can we, for the time being, focus on my basic claim that the first verse of the Bible, in the original Hebrew, is both a fundamental statement and a compound cipher - what I have described as 'a miracle set in stone'. There can be little doubt that it is the work of an extraordinary and purposeful mind - the writer anticipating by some hundreds of years the development of the key that unlocks the cipher, viz the Jewish practice, from circa 200BC, of writing numbers using alphabetic characters - this effectively ruling out all possibility of human authorship.

Can we then agree that, based on the independent evidences presented and discussed on my website, Genesis 1:1, as originally rendered, is indeed, a miracle of supernatural design?



  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: ASA list
  Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:00 AM
  Subject: repost

  I did an even poorer job of proofreading that usual on my recent post so here's a readable version.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
  To: "Roger G. Olson" <>
  Cc: <>
  Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:08 PM
  Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions

> Hi, Roger,
> Genesis 1:1 is not only a strategically-placed, powerful and fundamental
> assertion but is, in the original Hebrew, a numerical goldmine - its 7
> and 28 letters revealing significant features of coordinated numerical
> geometries and strong links with the Creator's name, with the intriguing
> number 666 (Rev.13:18), with 2 of the primary fundamental constants (pi
> alpha), with the metric dimensions of the A4 size of cut paper, and much
> else. Without doubt, this concise verse is a miracle 'set in stone', and
> intended to convey a serious message - particularly to those of us
> in this debate on origins.
> These facts convince me that what follows must be _revealed truth_ - for
> would a Creator, capable of such wonders, wish to mislead us!? In
> particular, therefore, the Creation and Flood narratives must be taken as
> read, along with the antediluvian genealogies. But, of course, the
> implications of Genesis 1:1 don't just end there; they must extend to the
> remainder of the Book.
> That, in a nutshell, Roger, is why I could never be anything but a YEC and
> Christian.

      One more into the breach. OK Vernon, assume for the sake of argument
  that your conclusions about the numerical patterns in Gen.1:1 are correct and that they
  prove that what follows is revealed truth. What is the form of that truth?
  Is it an accurate historical narrative of creation events? Is it true in a
  concordist sense - i.e., the type of interpretation that Glenn has argued
  for that includes an old earth and evolution? Is it true as theological
  statements about God's creation of the world and humanity which refer to the
  real world but are not to be read as historical narratives?

      Those possible interpretations can be debated but the point now is that,
  even if one accepts your conclusions about Gen.1:1 they do not imply (in the strict sense) a YEC conclusion.
  In fact they add absolutely zero to the whole discussion for those - like the great majority
  on this list - who already believe that scripture is true and authoritative.
  & they are useless for helping us to understand what types of texts we're
  dealing with in early Genesis or what types of truth they express.
Received on Sat Jun 26 18:17:17 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 26 2004 - 18:17:18 EDT