Re: Re: [asa] Predestined Fame:

From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Date: Sat Jul 19 2008 - 18:51:53 EDT

Hi Murray,

Here is what you last wrote with my responses interleaved.

MH> We're on totally different wavelengths as regards our understanding of
the
role and nature of Scripture, I'm afraid. My guess is that your puzzlement
arises from the assumption that we share the same conceptual space on the
matter.

VJ> Yes, I guess one learns as one goes along.

MH> First, I don't consider ANY translation as divinely inspired nor do I
consider
the Holy Spirit to be bound by such considerations. It is, basically, a
distinction between (1) the origins of a text and (2) how we read it under
the
influence of the Spirit. Failure to draw such a distinction means that one
either has to argue that ALL translations of scripture are inspired OR the
Holy Spirit cannot speak through the "non-inspired" translations (which
include, what? The NIV? NKJV? RSV? Good News? Non-English translations?).
Neither seems a desirable position to take. One _might_ adopt a mediating
position saying that the Spirit speaks most clearly through the AV - but
there's a MAJOR catch lurking in there which I leave others to discover for
themselves (that said, ask and ye shall recieve!).

VJ> While you may not consider any _translation_ to be divinely inspired,
presumably you'd go along with the Spirit-guided words of the Aposle Paul
(2Tm 3:16,17) and agree that the _original_ undoubtedly was; otherwise, the
Holy Spirit speaks with an uncertain voice, does He not?!

MH> Second, regardless of how you see it, I have said nothing about whether
one
can, or cannot, deducing the truth of Scripture by rational argument. All I
have stated is that I find unconvincing your attempts to demonstrate the
divine inspiration of the AV by using the particular
linguistic/numerological
arguments you have so far advanced. As to whether such arguments are based
on "self-evident" truth - well, that's precisely the question at issue. You
think it self-evident that the 46th word from the end of Psalm 46 is
"spear",
whereas I consider it self-evident that the word is "in".

VJ> I thought we had agreed that a _careful_ consideration of the
circumstances attending Psalm 46 reveals that the concluding 'selah' should,
logically, be _excluded_ from the reverse word count. You've obviously had
second thoughts. Would you care to explain your change of view?

But anyway, you must realise that this phenomenon is no isolated case -
though the easiest of all to comprehend. It is but one of many unique and
rare events which conspire together to 'spell ' the word 'miracle' and
thereby raise the status of the whole of the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures. I
have already drawn your attention to some of these, viz
http://www.whatabeginning.com/BBooks/EyeOpener/P.htm and
http://www.whatabeginning.com/BBooks/LangtonLegacy/P.htm

MH> I actually dislike saying too much about whether one can "prove"
anything
respecting the faith by rational argument as one is almost always
interpreted
wrongly on such matters. My experience is that most people take a
dichotomizing view of faith and reason whilst I would hold that the
interplay
between the two is actually far more complex. Personally, I consider that
the
Holy Spirit can speak as well through a mathematical proof as through a
sunset
or a sermon. But because it IS the Spirit speaking, it is therefore an error
to ask whether it was the proof or the sunset or the sermon or the Spirit
which convinces. The Spirit works THROUGH such secondary causes, not apart
from them. So we're not forced to discriminate between the primary cause of
the God's revelation through the Spirit, and the secondary causes already
mentioned. I'll only add that my current post-grad studies are PRECISELY on
the question of how John's Gospel presents God as making himself known
through
Christ - quoting Jn 10:37,38 as thought this were ALL that John's gospel
says
about the relation between Christ's works and the knowledge of God shows a
woefully inadequate grasp of John's theology of the Spirit which is,
essntially, the fact that even when one sees the works of Christ one
believes
on the basis of the Spirit enlightening the eyes of the soul THROUGH the
works. Again, it isn't an "either/or" proposition with regards to secondary
causes (Christ's works) and primary causes (the witness of the Spirit).

VJ> Murray, I believe you elaborate too much. All that I am aware of in the
quoted passage is that the Lord invites those skeptical of his words to
believe _because_ of the miracles they had seen him perform. Isn't that a
fair reading of the matter? And doesn't it extend to what I am now
promoting?

MH> Incidentally, you might consider that the arguments your are presenting
are
not, strictly speaking, "rational" arguments so much as "empirical"
arguments:
they hinge on the simple question of whether or not the text of the
Authorised
Version AS ACTUALLY WRITTEN shows the characteristics you claim for it. Yet
what I find is that when I count so many words from such-and-such a position
in the text IT IS DEMONSTRABLY THE CASE that your argument fails UNLESS you
first "tweak" the data to fit the theory. Not a good game to play amongst
those attempting to be faithful to the scientific method. It's like arguing
that "all swans are white" is self-evidently true just so long as one
disregards the black ones.

VJ> I believe I've already dealt with this objection. However, you ought to
know that most of phenomena I speak about are based upon the Hebrew and
Greek texts of Scripture. If you are interested, the following page provides
a good overview: www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/Wonders/P.htm

MH> Third, I consider your position viz-a-viz linguistic/numerological
arguments
to be fundamentally flawed for the reasons already given. One simply can't
argue that the facts ought to be faith strengthening when the facts actually
have to be tailored to fit the faith one wishes to espouse.

VJ> No tailoring, no tweaking, Murray; just careful observation and simple
logic.

Regards,

Vernon

www.otherbiblecode.com

www.whatabeginning.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:30 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: [asa] Predestined Fame:

>
>
> Hi Vernon,
>
> We're on totally different wavelengths as regards our understanding of the
> role and nature of Scripture, I'm afraid. My guess is that your puzzlement
> arises from the assumption that we share the same conceptual space on the
> matter.
>
> First, I don't consider ANY translation as divinely inspired nor do I
> consider
> the Holy Spirit to be bound by such considerations. It is, basically, a
> distinction between (1) the origins of a text and (2) how we read it under
> the
> influence of the Spirit. Failure to draw such a distinction means that one
> either has to argue that ALL translations of scripture are inspired OR the
> Holy Spirit cannot speak through the "non-inspired" translations (which
> include, what? The NIV? NKJV? RSV? Good News? Non-English translations?).
> Neither seems a desirable position to take. One _might_ adopt a mediating
> position saying that the Spirit speaks most clearly through the AV - but
> there's a MAJOR catch lurking in there which I leave others to discover
> for
> themselves (that said, ask and ye shall recieve!).
>
> Second, regardless of how you see it, I have said nothing about whether
> one
> can, or cannot, deducing the truth of Scripture by rational argument. All
> I
> have stated is that I find unconvincing your attempts to demonstrate the
> divine inspiration of the AV by using the particular
> linguistic/numerological
> arguments you have so far advanced. As to whether such arguments are based
> on "self-evident" truth - well, that's precisely the question at issue.
> You
> think it self-evident that the 46th word from the end of Psalm 46 is
> "spear",
> whereas I consider it self-evident that the word is "in".
>
> I actually dislike saying too much about whether one can "prove" anything
> respecting the faith by rational argument as one is almost always
> interpreted
> wrongly on such matters. My experience is that most people take a
> dichotomizing view of faith and reason whilst I would hold that the
> interplay
> between the two is actually far more complex. Personally, I consider that
> the
> Holy Spirit can speak as well through a mathematical proof as through a
> sunset
> or a sermon. But because it IS the Spirit speaking, it is therefore an
> error
> to ask whether it was the proof or the sunset or the sermon or the Spirit
> which convinces. The Spirit works THROUGH such secondary causes, not apart
> from them. So we're not forced to discriminate between the primary cause
> of
> the God's revelation through the Spirit, and the secondary causes already
> mentioned. I'll only add that my current post-grad studies are PRECISELY
> on
> the question of how John's Gospel presents God as making himself known
> through
> Christ - quoting Jn 10:37,38 as thought this were ALL that John's gospel
> says
> about the relation between Christ's works and the knowledge of God shows a
> woefully inadequate grasp of John's theology of the Spirit which is,
> essntially, the fact that even when one sees the works of Christ one
> believes
> on the basis of the Spirit enlightening the eyes of the soul THROUGH the
> works. Again, it isn't an "either/or" proposition with regards to
> secondary
> causes (Christ's works) and primary causes (the witness of the Spirit).
>
> Incidentally, you might consider that the arguments your are presenting
> are
> not, strictly speaking, "rational" arguments so much as "empirical"
> arguments:
> they hinge on the simple question of whether or not the text of the
> Authorised
> Version AS ACTUALLY WRITTEN shows the characteristics you claim for it.
> Yet
> what I find is that when I count so many words from such-and-such a
> position
> in the text IT IS DEMONSTRABLY THE CASE that your argument fails UNLESS
> you
> first "tweak" the data to fit the theory. Not a good game to play amongst
> those attempting to be faithful to the scientific method. It's like
> arguing
> that "all swans are white" is self-evidently true just so long as one
> disregards the black ones.
>
> Third, I consider your position viz-a-viz linguistic/numerological
> arguments
> to be fundamentally flawed for the reasons already given. One simply can't
> argue that the facts ought to be faith strengthening when the facts
> actually
> have to be tailored to fit the faith one wishes to espouse.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
>
>
>>
>> Hi Murray,
>>
>> Thanks for the concession. However - as the unwitting author of VJRV
>> (: -
>> I am puzzled by your seemingly contradictory remarks, viz "...the AV text
>> is
>> not divinely inspired..." and "We know Scripture to be the Word of God by
>> the internal witness of the Holy Spirit." A clarification therefore would
>> be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> As I see it, your intention is to convey the idea that the truth of the
>> Scriptures cannot be deduced by rational argument - even when this is
>> based
>> upon self-evident truth. But surely the Lord himself scotches that
>> notion
>> when he says "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if
>> I
>> do, though ye believe not me, _believe the works_: that ye may know, and
>> believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (Jn.10:37,38).
>>
>> Accordingly, let me draw your attention to two further pages of mine
>> which
>> focus on Bible structure as _a work of God_. They may be found at
>> http://www.whatabeginning.com/BBooks/EyeOpener/P.htm and
>> http://www.whatabeginning.com/BBooks/LangtonLegacy/P.htm.
>>
>> In my view, the facts presented therein should extend our understanding
>> of
>> divine inspiration and be faith-strengthening news for all Christians.
>> Would
>> you agree? Or would you still consider my position to be 'fundamentally
>> flawed'. But if so, in what respect?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vernon
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 19 18:53:00 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 19 2008 - 18:53:01 EDT