[asa] A case of non-biological DNA

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat Jan 12 2008 - 14:11:29 EST

A brilliant summing up Rich. I think it better to use scripture in a
pedestrian way rather than hyping it up. It is the difference between a good
square meal with no additives and transfats and the froth on a glass of coke
or beer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID

> On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Iain Strachan wrote:
>> By contrast, do you get my point that Vernon's findings (not just the
>> properties of 666), but the whole analysis of the seven values reveals
>> connected and coordinated symmetries, connected almost entirely with
>> triangular numbers and their properties? It's not that they are
>> triangular that makes them special, but the fact that there are so
>> many coordinated triangular numbers. (Though I agree that Vernon's
>> post here concentrated on 666, which leaves out all the context). But
>> if the seven were all related to, say Bell numbers or ternary square
>> words, and so forth, that again would indicate an interesting pattern.
>> In other words it's not just about finding an arcane mathematical
>> property for each of the values.
> While I am not impressed with Vernon's theology and Biblical
> interpretation, his mathematics is impressive. Nevertheless, I just find
> the whole enterprise flawed. Given a sufficiently large work you can find
> patterns (particularly in Hebrew because of lacking the vowels). What
> Vernon has done does point to God but not in the way he states. Namely,
> it shows we are made in God's image. We look for and find patterns even
> when they are not there. But, why do we all look for such patterns?
> Because it is something deep within our make up to search for purpose,
> meaning, and teleology. This points to God more surely than the alleged
> patterns that he has found.
>> However, equally I've seen on this list a tendency to push the
>> alternative 616, and wonder if that is just motivated by a desire to
>> debunk Vernon's findings, rather than saying one has proper evidence
>> that this is the correct version. I accept that the image of the
>> manuscript you saw says 616 and it is the earliest available
>> manuscript. But that doesn't mean to say it's the original one, and
>> that the original one wasn't 666. It just doesn't follow either way,
>> and it's something I think we'll never resolve beyond doubt. Anyone
>> who advocates one or the other is probably doing it because it fits
>> with what they want to see.
> I prefer, like Vernon, the 666 variant. I was noting that recent
> scholarship puts that at risk, however. There has been a running debate
> on whether oldest text or majority text is the proper way of determining
> the autographs. Oldest text prefers 616 and majority text prefers 666.
> Vernon quotes Ireneus but he does not go onto adopt Ireneus
> identification of the Beast as Euanthas, Teitan or Lateinos. The
> technique he used is exactly the same as was used to identify Nero. One
> of the things that commends the interpretation of Nero is that either
> variant supports it. Vernon's on the other hand depends on one variant
> that's looking increasingly suspect. It's extremely dicy to ever do this
> and betrays an interpretation of the inspiration of Scripture that is to
> the right of Chicago-statement inerrantism. In Chicago-statement
> inerrantism the problem of variant texts is "solved" by saying that the
> original autograph is inerrant and no doctrine save snake handling is
> dependent on a variant text. You would have to add Vernon's hypothesis to
> the list. Any Bible code hypothesis pushes the doctrine of inspiration
> towards mechanical dictation which Chicago- statement inerrantism rightly
> eschews.
> In summary, I come from Reformed tradition and we have a doctrine known
> as the analogy of faith. This -- loosely stated -- is that which is clear
> in Scripture should interpret that which is unclear. Jesus told us in the
> parable of the ten virgins and other eschatological parables that our
> application of his Second Coming (or own death prior to that) should be
> that we should be prepared by being righteous. God has given many on this
> list incredible talents in mathematics, science, and engineering. We
> should be using that in service to God and humanity rather than in
> endless speculation. What Vernon has done is by no means unique, however,
> as the evangelical church is obsessed with timelines, symbols, bacterial
> flagella, etc. I recall the uproar at the church school my wife worked
> for in Wichita. There was a booklet called "88 Reasons for the Rapture in
> '88". Whole families "came down the aisle". I really wonder what that
> experience did to their faith. Maybe my approach to Scripture is too
> pedestrian but the more speculative approach appears to me to be very,
> very dangerous -- shipwrecking the faith of many.
> Rich Blinne (Member ASA)
> 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 Jan 12 14:12:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 12 2008 - 14:12:42 EST