Re: It's no joke

From: <>
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 09:33:53 EDT

Vernon wrote:

>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 whi!
ch 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.

It's fine to observe and play with curiosities.

when I want to know about the past, I seek artifacts.
I would not seek my family history by reading the spokes
on a bicycle wheel. I would go looking for birth records
and other tangible items. Which is better, a stone
indicating the Sennacherib really did get his butt kicked
in Jerusalem or a claim about triangles? I'd go with the
stone. That is hard evidence.

Again, you cannot ask us to believe the earth is 6009
years old if your model cannot even show that there is
a consistent difference in the data. We should see a
visible change in all radioactive dating between everything
measured up to 6009 and anything earlier. The path is
seamless even for radiocarbon dating.

Actually, what I enjoyed about the breast plate was that
1/3 of the minerals are used in lasers. Of course, they
didn't know how to get resonance back then, but anyway.

By Grace alone we proceed,
Received on Thu Apr 14 09:35:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 09:35:06 EDT