From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 00:41:41 EDT
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:10:16 +0100 "Vernon Jenkins"
> You appear to overlook the principal reason for my last writing to
> It was to point to the fundamental matter of man's essential nature
> as it is
> presented in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures; and, arising from
> whether it is reasonable to believe that his (man's) overturning of
> account of how things actually began can possibly carry any
> conviction. I
> suggest that until that matter is understood, and settled, no real
> can be attached to the detailed evidence driving the current debate.
> associated consideration, of course, is man's tendency to discount
> supernatural; to look only to 'natural' explanations.
Correction: I did not overlook your "principal reason," I ignored it as
irrelevant and irrational. I once believed much as you do, until the Lord
delivered me from such lies about what the scriptures and his creation
teach. I discovered that geological dating might be off by a factor of no
more than two, not by 6 orders of magnitude. I recognize that you think
that this makes me discount the supernatural. I do not, for I rest in the
constant care and concern of my Lord.
> Dave, perhaps you would like to address my concerns with respect to
> Let me now briefly turn to what you have chosen to call
> drivel'. You are hardly suggesting that the numbers I find in the
> Scriptures - express and implied - are merely figments of my
> Have you, therefore, no desire to inquire why they are there? A
> examination of the facts reveals they are undoubtedly of
> origin - and one thus infers they are intended to accomplish some
> purpose. I claim no personal advantage for seeing a clear message in
> numbers - but I do consider it strangely ostrich-like for any
> intellectual Christian to brush these aside as completely
> Are you really presuming to deny our Creator the right to use
> whatever means
> He considers appropriate to safeguard His Word?
Your question on this matter assumes that the current state of the
scriptural text is inerrantly inspired and preserved in its present
state. I know enough about the text to recognize this assumption to be
false, for there is not a single version of most passages. So the basis
of your analysis is flawed. Further, I recall one place where you changed
the word order of the text in order to make things come out right.
Further, if you were discovering the handiwork of deity, then the numbers
would show up exactly in every word, clause, sentence, paragraph and
book. There would be no exceptions.
Additionally, there is no benefit to a walk with God to the stuff you dig
out. If anything, it advances pride, which is hardly a virtue. When I
referred to "numerological drivel" it was to avoid using an earthier
> By the way, your belief that the engineers of Solomon's day believed
> pi to
> equal 3 is utter nonsense - if only on the basis that the pyramid
> were near neighbours - and the early Hebrews had spent a long time
> Egypt.. However, a closer reading of II Chronicles 4:2, 5 and a
> sympathetic approach to the data adequately proves the point.
I simply go by the text.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 00:54:36 EDT