Re: A word of appreciation

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Sat Sep 18 2004 - 16:55:01 EDT


Just three points in response to your recent email:

(1) I see nothing amiss with my claim that the numerical features attending the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 are manifestly true. How, then, can you label the matter 'silly nonsense'. Are your analytical processes and skills so completely different from mine? Be good enough to pinpoint the source of the 'silliness', as you see it, or else retract the charge.

(2) Regarding pi and e: because they are indeed transcendental, it is clearly not possible to represent them precisely as ratios of integers - which is the context in which they occur in my analysis. Both approximations are correct to 5 significant figures. Would you not agree that this is, at least, 'interesting'?

(3) Your first paragraph closes with the words, "But is a proper regard for the knowledge and power of God benighted?" I have to admit this had me reaching for my dictionary, for its meaning was not at all obvious to me. As I now understand it, 'benighted' means 'darkened', or 'covered with darkness'. I therefore assume that you claim to have God's works and ways completely mapped out - an attitude which I consider to be both presumptuous and wrong, for you thereby render yourself _unteachable_. Who do you suppose planted these numerical markers in the Hebrew words that open the Scriptures? Surely, we would be wise to accomodate them as manifestations of God's power and declared intent - and thereby extend our understanding of Him and of His ways?

Your words cause me to conclude, reluctantly, that the present generation of intellectual Christians is quite incapable of recognising _miracle_ - even when one is presented to them in such a sharply defined way!

Claiming few supporters, but backed by reason and simple logic,

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
  Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:22 AM
  Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

  CL-UK simply agrees with most of us, but is more determined not to be sidetracked. What is "self-evident truth" to you is silly nonsense to me. One clear reason for my stand is that the omniscient deity will know that pi and epsilon are transcendental and will not inspire incorrect values in his truthful revelation. To you, I am obscurantist. But is a proper regard for the knowledge and power of God benighted?

  I recall the story of the mother watching her son as the platoon marched by and saying, "Everybody's out of step but my son John." You take the appraisal a step further, "Everybody's out of step but me." Can anything I say change your mind? No, because you are committed to the declaration, "Everybody's out of step but me."

  With the vast majority,

  On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:46:40 +0100 "Vernon Jenkins" <> writes:
    To the Forum

    As a YEC, and declaring my belief in the potency of the numero-geometrical structure underlying the Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1, I recently asked to be subscribed to Creation Link UK. Here are some of the moderators' comments:

    "As moderators we are agreed that CL-UK does not exist for the discussion of
    Biblical numerics. Therefore if we were to subscribe you, it would be on the
    condition that you undertake *not* to raise the subject (directly or
    indirectly) on the list. We would therefore appreciate it if you would
    confirm with us that your interest in creation issues is wider than numerics
    you deal with on the web pages you listed and that you are prepared to
    undertake not to discuss or promote your own (or other peoples') theories
    concerning Biblical numerics through CL-UK. If you agree to this
    restriction, but then in the future do not keep to it, we would remove you
    from the list without further discussion."

    Needless to say, I did not pursue this potential avenue for the proclamation of an empirical truth that has much to do with our understanding of the Creator and His regard for those engaged in the present debate. I therefore all the more appreciate the fact that no such restrictions have been placed upon me by the moderator of this forum. But, of course, the obscurantist attitude to my findings - as noted above - extends across the board, and I have to ask What is it about these particular _self-evident truths_ that invokes responses ranging through incredulity, indifference or revulsion, to amusement? Am I to understand that _fact_ no longer interests the inquiring mind? Why is it that those claiming to love truth persist in following flights of fancy?

    Appreciative, but perplexed,

Received on Sat Sep 18 17:20:47 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 18 2004 - 17:20:49 EDT