Posted on 12/12/2004 3:07:51 AM PST by The Loan Arranger
For a lot of people, the Bible and mathematics are dry subjects, but not for Edwin Sherman – he believes he's found how the two fit together.
Sherman, founder of the Isaac Newton Bible Code Research Society and a professional mathematician, is convinced that the Hebrew Bible contains coded messages that are evidence of God's authorship of the Bible. His book, "Bible Code Bombshell: Compelling Scientific Evidence that God Authored the Bible," describes numerous examples of encoded phrases and sentences that are both lengthy and relevant to the text where they were found.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Always honored by your posting even when I disagree with you.
Blessings of CHRISTmas to you and yours.
In *our* exchange -- you and me conversing. And you were.
Given that I take insult to others by me very seriously, I reread the thread to this point. You are wrong.
I am correct.
To this point, there were 34 posts with insults to those who believed in the codes at all. They were all much more pointed and much more attacks on persons, sanity, etc. than anything the other direction.
And this has *what* to do with your personal attacks on *me* before I had made any at all?
These insults and attacks on the Code believers personhood etc. began with post 2.
Excuse me?? Post #2 declared the claims "BS", which was blunt but a comment on the *analysis* that was given, which was fair game, and the rest of the post consisted of honest questions. How on Earth do you read this as "attacks on the Code believers personhood"?
If this is your idea of a "personal attack", then it's hard to see what might *not* qualify as a personal attack...
At post 169 I used the words rebellious and hedonistic to characterize unnamed skeptics' motivations for their beliefs in a very generalized rather vague comment.
Yes, and it was uncalled for.
I and any others coming anywhere close to insult spoke of the flawed arguments etc. and virtually never assaulted the sanity, character, personhood etc. of those on the other side.
You were sure quick to assult *my* character the first time I posted here...
The opposite has persistently been true of your side on this thread.
"My side"? First, while I haven't reread all of the 168 posts prior to your 169, I have skimmed over a lot of them quickly, and see no caluminous personal attacks from "my side", much less a "persistent" pattern of such.
Second of all, even if several people skeptical of the "Bible codes" *had* been obnoxious in some way, in what sort of bizarre moral code of yours would that make it somehow okay for you to attack *my* character the first time I stepped into the thread and posted my views on the issue without attacking anyone? Please explain.
I take insult seriously partly because all of us are made in God's image. And because Jim Robinson wants it that way and it's his turf.
Then maybe you shouldn't attack people who haven't attacked you first.
But I make a distinction between assaulting an argument or wording or logic vs assaulting personhood, character etc.
Then you should notice that I started out here doing the former (post 304), and you immediately responded by doing the latter (post 312).
The folks on your side
If you have a problem with any "folks on my side", feel free to take it up with *them*, and don't play these "guilt by association" games by using it as a cheap excuse to attack *me*.
--and you--seem to be compulsively driven to harshly assaulting personhood, character, sanity morality etc. and not just occasionally but with virtually every post--at least in my direction--interestingly.
I was responding to you in the manner in which you addressed me, actually. As for the "virtually every post" assertion, you're either engaging in hyperbole, or you're *way* too apt to see "harsh assaults" where few others would. This discussion has been spirited at times, but most of the posts have addressed the substance of the issue, and have not enaged in "harsh assualts" on your "personhood, character, sanity morality etc." And I'm still trying to figure out how you saw any of that in post #2.
I'm kind of left with the feeling that you folks have an incredible double standard.
Again, if you have any problem with "you folks", go talk it out with "those folks". I'm not their appointed leader, and I don't speak for them, even though you seem to think that I'm fair game because "they" have allegedly mistreated you before I ever got here.
And, I'm a bit flumoxed as to what sort of ANYTHING NEGATIVE any of us can say or what words we can use short of laudatory of every word you wrote, which you'd NOT construe as an insult or attack. Perhaps we could say something like: --I disagree. --I don't find your words convincing. --I don't think you have it right. And perhaps similar super gentle opposing statements? But I wouldn't be surprised if you'd scream that even such phrasings were insulting.
Oh, puh-leaze... Stop being a Drama Queen. Feel free to disagree with anything I write, even vociferously. But surely you *can't* be as "flummoxed" as you're pretending to be here. As you should well know, because I've already explained it to you, what I object to are unprovoked PERSONAL ATTACKS, such as your charming out-of-the-blue accusation that I must be either "very ignorant" or so blindingly biased that my "biases are causing [me] to distort reality 100% out of whack".
If you don't realize how your own personal attack on me would be offensive and out of line, if you're so "flummoxed" that somehow you think I'm just annoyed that you weren't "laudatory of every word I wrote", or that I might "scream" if you "super gently" disagreed with the points I made, then, well, you're beyond reach.
In any case, after reviewing the thread, I'm rather comfortable with my wording. Your habits of fierce insult and hostile indignation are quite far over whatever line I may have even approached.
Yeah, sure, you keep telling yourself that. But you're not going to fool anyone else.
And your inults are not at all restricted to the logic, argument, reasoning, points etc. of those of us on our side.
Where, exactly? Do you have any examples of my "inults [sic]" which were not in response to someone insulting me?
Your insults are pointedly personal, even viscious toward personhood, character etc.
Examples?
Very admirable, that.
Ooh, sarcasm implying I'm the opposite of admirable. How.. "pointedly personal", even viscious [sic] toward personhood, character etc."
And you say *I* have a double standard?
Here you go: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
How close does the text I am using, compare to your source?
I've had this translation for alomost ten years, and I have always wondered how accurate the context and relational wording is.
I'm rather surprised at your characterization of the sequence of things after my review of the thread and notes thereon.
However, I have no further desire to persist with the analytical discussion of it. I find your . . . memory or review or whatever you care to call it . . . uhhhh lacking and quite askew from my own reality in sequence and quality/type of posts.
However, enjoy your reality.
I apologize for any and all assault or insult of your person or character at my hand, at all. It's not my desire to assault or insult personhood or character.
Sincerely,
I don't see why, it's really quite simple.
1. Was or was not post #304 my first post in this thread?
2. Did or did not my post #304 concern itself with the issues and refrain from personal attacks?
3. Was or was not post #312 your first retort to me?
4. Did or did not your post #312 engage in personal attacks on me?
However, I have no further desire to persist with the analytical discussion of it.
Well sure, now that I've pointed out the flaws in your self-congratulatory version...
I find your . . . memory or review or whatever you care to call it . . . uhhhh lacking
In what way?
and quite askew from my own reality
No doubt.
However, enjoy your reality.
Thank you. Enjoy your illusions.
I apologize for any and all assault or insult of your person or character at my hand, at all. It's not my desire to assault or insult personhood or character.
Then stop making them. And stop attempting excuses for them, as you did in post #413. Your claim that others may have allegedly abused you in no way excuses your unprovoked attack on me.
PARTICULARLY according to your standards, your
304 and 309
were quite attacking, assaultive, insulting.
ENOUGH.
Bye.
For me, responding to one of your notoriously thorough and engaging posts is akin to eating a large piece of pecan pie with ice cream - very rich and filling but not something I can afford to do every day (LOL!)
We did have a compelling discussion about Enoch on the other thread concerning astronomy, antiquity and authenticity. But there, as here, and on many science threads - there is a tendency to put all of us Christians in the same bucket wrt Scriptural understanding.
The Noah flood is an example. Some take it metaphorically, some see it as real but targeted to Adamic man, some view it in light of pseudepigraphal manuscripts, some take it literally according to a particular canon of Scripture - etc. The “never happened” argument is directed to the last category mentioned.
In the Enochian writings, for instance, the flood occurs and the ark rises in an enclosed area.
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. - Genesis 6:17
All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died. - Genesis 7:22
The reason for the flood is described in seven verses in Genesis 6. And certainly there are many of good conscience, not wanting to wander beyond a canon, who hold views informed strictly from those verses. Using only those seven verses as authority, a number of stories have been proposed as to who and what those “giants” were.
Other Christians – also of good conscience – explore the ancient manuscripts and the writings of the early Church fathers. Likewise, these have a variety of understandings. But if one is searching ancient manuscripts wrt Genesis 6:1-7 he will surely come across Justin Martyr and Enoch – the ancient manuscript rich with detail about who and what those “giants” were. The extent to which one is informed by such manuscripts is again a very personal thing. Some take Enoch as Scripture (as did Jude and Martyr) – some take Enoch as questionably preserved and thus, with much caution – and some take Enoch as interesting literature. To some, Enoch is dangerous and evil.
Now, having said all that – I am one of those who receives Enoch as questionably preserved - outside the copy in the Dead Sea Scrolls - and pray about everything I read (there is an Ethiopic and a Slavic version). OTOH, I know that Enoch was Scripture to Jude and many others at the time. So I do not dismiss it out-of-hand. Consequently, my view of the Noah flood is that after imprisoning the watchers (ill behaved angels), the flood was to kill their offspring with human women (giants) and Adamic men except Noah and family (not necessarily all men) and all animals corrupted by the watchers, giants and Adamic men (shuddering to think what they might have been doing to the wildlife).
Therefore, your argument - ”*AS* a global, world-covering flood. I stand by my statements that the evidence simply does not support such a scenario.” - does not apply to me.
There are three Enochs in Charlesworth's book. The first is the Ethiopic, the second the Slavic and the third is rabbianic, Merkabah. The first Enoch is from a fifteenth century manuscript found in Kebran in Lake Tana. The translator compared it with the Ethiopic manuscript of the late eighteenth century found in the Garrett collection and others. The manuscript contains many footnotes on the variations and his translation.
I know of no better translation than this: available on Amazon
Its incumbant upon those making claims to prove their assertations, not on us to seek out refutations. I did read the entire article as well as your other "proofs". Nowhere are there any answers for why the REAL scientists are able to replicate the results in any piece of text you can name, and not only that find nonsesical instances of words throughout the Bible the same way your cranks find supposed "miracles". In fact, if you look at the claimed revelations, there's no there there. They are meaningless fragments of sentences, scattered words (Translated to their advantage) and most of them are misspelled or fudged to get a pre-determined result. If you believe your horoscope I guess you can believe this. Reading tea leaves or feeling the bumps on someone's head might give you better luck though. ;)
If you use the code you can see several AMAZING PATTERNS in the facets of that 8 ball!!!!! :o
Personally, I think this is the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy, "All that is hidden, is made known"
Thank you.
God Bless You
#309 was *YOUR* post... But yes, it was "attacking, assaultive, insulting". Thanks for admitting that.
As for my post #304, please identify which part(s) you feel were personal attacks. I did not intend any, and upon several rereadings I still don't see any, nor any portions which could be misconstrued as such. I addressed the "Bible code" methodology itself, and just pointed out the problems inherent in the method, and countered your claim that the BCD is giving some mathematicians "consternation" by pointing out that others hold opposing opinions.
Please explain where, specifically, in my post #304 you found material that was personally "attacking, assaultive, insulting", instead of addressing the issues of the BCD method itself.
You are right about 309. Sorry. I put my note about my post on your card vs my card. My error.
As to 304 or your other insults, I have no confidence at all on informing you in the least way on any facts from my perspective or any other perspective but your own. You are plenty bright enough to find whatever level of truth you care to accept.
Have a blessed and enlightened CHRISTmas season.
Cheers.
Your "REAL" scientists and other slams are plenty insulting to some pretty high powered, high quality professionals in quality positions.
Be that as it may, I have probably less than 0.00% interest in trying to prove anything further to you.
You are bright enough to seek out all the quality scientific papers discussing in solid ways the issues you raise. I have no further interest in digging them up for you.
You will likely not dig them up, either.
You will likely continue on in your 'pristinely righteous' notions of 'truth.'
As long as God doesn't slap you upside the head with any contrary aspects of truth or contrary REAL TRUTHs from HIS perspective, you will likely do quite comfortably for some time to come.
Have a blessed CHRISTmas season.
Cheers.
If you want to be deluded knock yourself out, just don't expect anyone else to take this crap seriously. Its been blown to bits by legit researchers.
I fiercely disagree from reading an extensive amount of evidence on both sides.
YOu know there are many more intelligent ways to study the Bible if you really want knowlege than using it as a word search game. I think I'm beginning to understand your only interest is in the weird science aspects of the entire thing. I think its disgraceful and blasphemous myself.
Thankfully, about me, I'm quite an expert.
You are wholesale wrong, again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.