Re: [asa] Predestined Fame:

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Tue Jul 15 2008 - 17:38:40 EDT

Hi Murray,

In my Concise OED I observe that 'selah' is "an exclamation - probably a musical direction". On this understanding it must stand apart from the Psalm proper, and discounting it appears to be a reasonable thing to do - wouldn't you agree?

Regarding the absence of the terminal 'e' of Shakespeare: this is surely a clutching at straws; I fail to see that it seriously compromises the strength of the existing coincidences.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <>
To: "ASA" <>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Predestined Fame:

> Hi Vernon,
> But you're missing the point of David's original criticism.
> Your treatment of scripture is quite inconsistent when, on the one hand,
> you argue that every letter of the text is numerologically significant,
> yet on the other hand you have to omit portions of the text to make your
> point.
> More specifically, if one takes Psalm 46 AS WRITTEN in the AV - i.e.
> WITHOUT the arbitrary omission of the word "selah" -- then "a careful
> study of the matter" shows your argument to be just plain wrong. For the
> 46th word from the end of the Psalm is, in fact, "in".
> There's neither a "mighty miracle of chance" nor "divine intent" nor
> even any "coincidence" here - just a rather obvious effort to
> demonstrate a theory by arbitrary selection of data.
> But never mind, perhaps you can still make an argument -- even if
> Shakin' Stevens IS a step down from William Shakespeare.
> The writing of which, by the way, reminds me that Shakespeare is spelt
> with a terminal "e" - so even omitting "selah" it seems your argument at
> least entails the claim that God can't spell. In which case, I wonder
> why we should place such enormous significance in his mathematics.
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>> Well, gentlemen, I have to say that you all exhibit a remarkable degree
>> of tolerance to coincidence and a distaste for being reminded that the
>> supernatural is an integral part of our lives. You must realise that I
>> am drawing attention to _facts_ whose presence in the Scriptures surely
>> deserve to be addressed - particularly by those who lay claim to the
>> title 'scientist'. A careful study of the matter appears to offer only
>> two possible conclusions - the phenomena are there either by _divine
>> intent_, or by a _mighty miracle of chance_. I suggest the former is the
>> better option in view of the manifestly brilliant display of numerics
>> inhabiting the Bible's 7 opening Hebrew words - which find echoes in the
>> characteristics of several common artefacts - all features which demand
>> a supernatural explanation.
>> You, George, in particular, have consistently refused to look at these
>> data. Yet, remarkably - presumably on the basic of mere hearsay - you
>> write them off as being completely inconsequential. In my view, they
>> threaten many of your cherished ideas; I therefore quite understand why
>> you should choose to remain in denial.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 15 17:39:37 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 15 2008 - 17:39:37 EDT