Re: It's no joke

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Wed Apr 13 2005 - 18:12:46 EDT

Hi Dave,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. No, I can offer no satisfactory explanation (risible, or otherwise), and freely admit that you fellows have in your armoury weapons that continue to present difficulties for one of my persuasion. However, you in turn must sometimes experience a twinge or two of doubt. Let me therefore test you with a little matter that was drawn to my attention some days ago.

One of the principal reasons for the 'Mt.Sinai encounter', recorded in Exodus 25-31, was to instruct Moses as to the precise details of construction of the portable sanctuary that would function as God's dwelling place on earth - the tabernacle - together with its furnishings, and manner of use. Concerning the high-priestly vestments we read particularly of the oracle - the Urim and Thummim (Ex.28:30) - provided for the guidance of the people in difficult and uncertain times. Details are lacking of the nature and use of these items, but we are informed that they were held in a pouch - called the breastplate (or, in some translations, breastpiece) - attached to the front of the ephod - the outmost garment of the high priest. This breastplate was formed from a single piece of highly-embroidered linen cloth one cubit long and half a cubit wide, folded over in two to form a square, half a cubit by half a cubit (about 9in.x 9in). It was adorned with twelve precious stones on which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes - ie those of the sons and grandsons of Jacob arranged according to their order of birth. These were set out in four rows of three stones each (Ex.28:15-30). [Note: the names 'Levi' and 'Joseph' are absent from this arrangement].

A fair alternative reading of the Hebrew of these tribal names leads to a rectangular array of whole numbers. 'Jesus Christ' is encoded 3 times in this array; by name, once in Greek and once in Hebrew; by description, once in Hebrew. The details may be found here:

Surely mysteries such as these must be accomodated by all who are committed to the search for truth. I trust you would agree.


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: It's no joke

>I just read a news item in /Science/, 307:1841 (25 March 2005), that
> radiocarbon dating has been calibrated back to "12,400 cal yr B.P." using
> tree rings, and to 26,000 through corals and forminifera. The original
> studies are in /Radiocarbon/, 46 (2005). Since an earlier calibration
> brought out the explanation in the /Journal of the Creation Research
> Society/ that bristlecone pines sometimes (~1 in 3 years ?) produced
> double rings, and Vernon insists that nothing can be carbon-dated older
> than 58,000 yr B.P., are we to recognize that every tree produces three
> annual rings annually? Or is it that recognizing an old earth makes
> scientists either unable to count or to recognize growth rings? Note
> that, on YEC/flood geology assumptions, tree rings must have been
> produced since the Flood, not since creation.
> I await the risible explanation, which contradicts the heading.
> Dave
Received on Wed Apr 13 18:14:50 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 13 2005 - 18:14:52 EDT