Re 1, it is silly because it implies that God doesn't know that pi is
transcendental and he is the author of the approximate rather than the
perfect. Re 2, it is not interesting if God is accused of doing it,
except as a slam on his omniscience. If you want to adopt process
theology or some similar aberration that limits God's knowledge, it would
Re 3, you have indicated that those of us who disagree with your view are
in the dark. I turn that on its head claiming that those who agree with
you are denying the perfection of the deity. As to the following, what is
the difference between a miracle and a coincidence? Numerical agreement
in one or two verses out of the whole of scripture does not qualify as a
miracle, no matter how loudly you proclaim it. Now, if the whole of the
creation story produced pi to a hundred places, that would be a better
indication of something special. Were the whole text of Genesis the
sequence of prime numbers or some other mathematical sequence or value,
there would be grounds for a claim of divine intervention. However, as
one swallow does not a summer make, so one verse does not a miracle make.
I do not deny your calculation, accurate to five places. I simply refrain
from using the earthier term for the claim you make on that pitiful bit
of evidence, five places out of a required infinity. I do not recall the
details, but massaging Shakespeare's text produced all sorts of claims.
This was used to discount the manipulation that specified Bacon as the
author of Shakespeare's plays.
Of course, since you KNOW that your view is correct, you KNOW that my
critique is vapid, no matter the majority arrayed against you. So you
will continue to wonder how the TRUTH escapes almost all of us.
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:55:01 +0100 "Vernon Jenkins"
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"
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
Biblical numerics. Therefore if we were to subscribe you, it would be on
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
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
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 20:00:36 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 18 2004 - 20:00:37 EDT