Re: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Wed Jun 30 2004 - 18:59:43 EDT


I have little doubt that you are correct in claiming that all the regular
contributors to this forum accept the truth of Genesis 1:1, and should
require no further proof of its veracity. However, it now turns out that
this verse is _bigger_ than we can ever have imagined. Its component of
unique numbers, coordinated geometries and apposite symbolisms serve to
augment its already substantial prominence as first and most important verse
of the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures. So it is appropriate that we ask
(correctly deducing that there must be some serious purpose behind this!),
What are we expected to learn from this gratuitous 'sign'? As a minimum, I
suggest a completely new and fuller understanding of the character of our
Creator - in particular, His exceptional abilities, His interest in us, and
His dependability and truthfulness. Thus, for example, is it any longer
reasonable for us to suppose that His making of Eve was other than from a
rib of Adam (Gen.2:21-24). But how can this statement live alongside a
belief in theistic evolution?

Gordon, you have suggested that my form of numerical analysis might, with
advantage, be used elsewhere in the scriptural text. I have to tell you that
of the 31,102 verses contained in the Bible, only the first (i.e. Genesis
1:1) demonstrates the principle with overwhelming power. Clearly, it would
be presumptuous of us to decide what our Maker should, or should not, do in
this regard. Clearly, He is a free agent. We simply observe the results of
His activity - and, hopefully, are instructed.


----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Standing miracle? (was ' Evolution: A few questions')

> Vernon,
> What bothers me about your comments on this thread is the non sequiturs. I
> think that all the regular contributors to this forum accept the truth of
> Genesis 1:1. The numerical patterns in it are totally unnecessary to reach
> that conclusion. To say that it implies YEC seems like quite a stretch. If
> that verse gives any indication at all about the length of time involved,
> it is not supportive of YEC. The author chose to use the word *reshit*,
> which means a first part of something, not a first point. See what this
> word means in Gen. 10:10, Job 42:12, and Jeremiah 28:1.
> What would really be impressive would be if you could come up with a way
> based on numerical patterns to test any text, not just Gen. 1:1, to tell
> for sure whether or not it is Scripture. That would be a great boon to
> textual criticism.
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> > 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
> > 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
> > claim of 'standing miracle' reasonable, or not? - and if not, why not?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> > >
> > > > That, in a nutshell, Roger, is why I could never be anything but a
> > and a
> > > > Christian.
> > >
Received on Wed Jun 30 19:14:55 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 19:14:57 EDT