Fw: Small probabilities

From: David Bradford <david.bradford1@which.net>
Date: Thu Dec 01 2005 - 15:33:18 EST

If I had read Iain's response first, I might not have made essentially the same point. But I am happy to add my name to the petition for an educated debate.


----- Original Message -----
From: David Bradford
To: Randy Isaac
Cc: ASA Message Board
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Small probabilities

You say that 'the low probability of occurrence of numerical results is not an indication of divine significance', and that is a perfectly reasonable proposition that surely deserves reasoned discussion. If said low probability does not indicate divine significance, then it surely might mean something else. The issue does not go away so easily.

It would be preposterous to suggest that numeric values may be ascribed retrospectively to a whole alphabet, long after the writing of a text that has become sacred to half the world's population, and yet lead to such improbably elaborate characteristics that Vernon has described. If they are not an indication of divine significance, then it almost certainly follows that they arose in some other deliberate way. And that would have to be a human agency. Now that itself is a proposition most worthy of serious consideration, on a par with the theory that Genesis was compiled from three or four separate sources. How would this possibility affect the widely-held belief that the Bible is at least divinely inspired? How could such an enticing phenomenon sneak unnoticed past an omniscient Creator?

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Randy Isaac
  To: Vernon Jenkins ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:25 AM
  Subject: Re: Small probabilities

  Yes, Vernon, I do agree that facts are facts. Can't argue with that. The significance and meaning of those facts is the question. Your observations are clever and perhaps even creative and artistic. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that there is any philosophical or theological significance to the patterns and relationships you have described. The verses you have quoted previously to justify such signficance do not give carte blanche permission to deduce meaning from arbitrary arithmetic manipulation of numeric values of letters. As we've discussed in this forum, the low probability of occurrence of numerical results is not an indication of divine significance.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Vernon Jenkins
    To: Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 7:28 PM
    Subject: Re: Small probabilities


    Further to the matter of the observed coordination of the numerical geometries that derive from unbroken sequences of the Bible's opening Hebrew words, I invite you consider some additional data which lend considerable weight to these incontrovertible and remarkable events. The relevant page titled "Genesis 1:1 - The Inside Story" may be found at http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Inside_Story_SH.htm.

    You may remember, some time ago, Iain commenting on the fact that these realities are 'not everyone's cup of tea'. But facts are facts! And facts are the lifeblood of rational and meaningful debate. Is our grasp of the eternal verities so sure - so secure - that we, as Christians, can afford to ignore such solid empirical data? Surely not, as I think you must agree.

Received on Thu Dec 1 15:36:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 15:36:10 EST