Re: Standing miracle? (was ' Evolution: A few questions')

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sun Jun 27 2004 - 17:48:40 EDT

Vernon

Any chance of you answering my question of a week or two ago on the age of
the earth.

Surely the most important mathematical thing in Genesis one is that the six
days come from sexgenmismal fractions 1/1 =60 1/2=30 1/3 =20 1/4=15 1/5=12
1/6 =10 hence six is important and 1/7 of 60 is to complicated a fraction
for mathematically impaired morons like me to work out. Hence a seven day
week and that the 6 days of creation are not literal 144 hrs.

The ages of the patriarchs fit int with sexagesimal maths
Could genesis have originated from Babylon ? 6th century?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 9:42 PM
Subject: Standing miracle? (was ' Evolution: A few questions')

> Thanks for these comments, Gordon. However, like George, you seem anxious
to
> take my view of Genesis 1:1 'as read' and rush on to the implications, as
I
> have voiced them. As a mathematician you are of course well-placed to
offer
> an expert opinion on the numerical wealth and quality of the data to which
I
> refer. Perhaps you would like to comment on this particular matter. Is my
> claim of 'standing miracle' reasonable, or not? - and if not, why not?
>
> Vernon,
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > > Genesis 1:1 is not only a strategically-placed, powerful and
fundamental
> > > assertion but is, in the original Hebrew, a numerical goldmine - its 7
> words
> > > 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
> and
> > > 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
> involved
> > > in this debate on origins.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > These facts convince me that what follows must be _revealed truth_ -
for
> why
> > > 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 a
> > > Christian.
> >
> > Vernon,
> >
> > I doubt that anyone on this list other than you can follow your
reasoning
> > to reach your conclusion.
> >
> > Consider the prominent proponents of the inspiration, authority,
> > inerrancy, etc. of the Bible. Did any of these people reach that
> > conclusion based on some connection between Gen. 1:1 and the number of
the
> > Beast? Why is it that so many of these people were not YECs? Do you
think
> > that they were not honest in their defense of the Scriptures? Even most
> > YECs in history did not subscribe to flood geology. It is of relatively
> > recent origin. The Flood narrative taken as read does not support it.
> >
> > Gordon Brown
> > Department of Mathematics
> > University of Colorado
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Jun 27 18:25:20 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 27 2004 - 18:25:22 EDT