Jon,
Are you ready for an upset or an uplift? It¹s up to you! Go to:
Theories of Evolution – The Vain Imaginations of Fools
Within that section is listed a poem you may love to hate (or hate to
love):
Evolution – A Poem of Tact, Diplomacy, and Gentle Persuasion
As for your thoughts on beef, the omegas, diet, health, etc., go to
www.harvesthaven.com.
Victor
Thanks for the email!
Yes Victor, I’ve heard all of this before. I was an apologetics writer long ago.
The odd thing is my newsletter did not say “Guys, we evolved from fish.”
The term “evolved” is painstakingly obvious. Fossil records from as little as 10,000 years “show definitive differentials in bone, teeth and skeletal structure.”
Just to quote the encyclopedia.
Since the word only means “change”…ta-da. We have indeed ‘evolved’ to eat meat. Or rather, just never de-evolved not to!
If you do not trust this, you can easily trust species of worms and fish who evolve (that means “change”) over the course of 10 years. We have video of it.
This is what I meant by that term.
To the gist of your point if I may. I think you “may” find this entertaining. Perhaps not.
Let me show you how far people will go to Justify their interpretation (that word is KEY) of the Bible.
(Bear in mind I’m a trained theologian.)
————-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
A group of 3,000 people, many of whom are “scientists”, who claim that the world is flat.
Yes…flat.
Why? Because the Bible says so.
Read the literature… ; )
(Trust me…this claim is no less substantial than The Bible suggesting the world is under 10,000 years old.)
You MUST understand history to get the Intensity of the scientific misses that the Bible, usually via incorrect assumptions, can led millions into believing.
We did not believe the earth was flat for THOUSANDS of years solely because of the Bible. But it certainly supports the notion. THAT is the only reason why there was an Uproar from the really “holy” guys.
The ones who were afraid of the truth. Loss of faith, etc.
The rest of the Church were okay with it. Slave trade and all. Easy to massage that “4 corners” passage.
That was the history…I’m just the reporter. : )
————–
http://www.geocentricbible.com/
This is not the only website. The are literally “thousands” of loons who believe the world is “the center of the universe” and, of course, Copernicus was just smoking crack.
Him, and about 10,000,000 other astronomers.
Funny…a lot of these loons ‘are’ astronomers.
So, the world is flat. And stationary.
And the lunar missions were all fake.
Space shuttle…it’s a hoax.
Etc, etc.
But hey…the Bible does say this as well. That was a fundamental belief for longer than we have had Protestantism!
These are just two of the dozens of points where The Bible and science butt heads.
Or rather, the interpretations of the few are …overshadowed by the reality of the many.
Thousands of apologeticists are trained to “get around” these problems. What they do NOT tell you is that there was never a need…that is, until scientific fact was no longer possible to deny.
No one was championing, “The world is ROUND Because the Bible says so!”
No one.
They were forced, instead, to reinterpret the “four corners of the earth” as…well, OBVIOUSLY “figurative.”
Do you see the bait and switch?
These men and women are not bad people. No more than the evolutionists your buddy loves To call “fools.” They represent the many when It comes to scientific thought….that’s all.
Unlike this guy, they are open to being wrong. That’s the beauty of science. It can change with FACTS. Kinda nice.
Fortunately for me, the “many” teach our kids science and math. And many of them are Believers.
They are just not “fools”, as I believe the “evolution is bunk” guy wrote.
Odd, as now he is in danger of the flames of Hell, according to Jesus. (Matt. 5:22)
Oh, the irony… ; )
Peace,
Jon
Hi Jon, Paul Cohen here.
Apparently you red the articles Victor sent you about evolution just enough to reply, “I’ve heard all of this before,” but not enough to realize that we never said adaptations do not occur. What we said is that evolution, the changing of one species to another, is a lie, a colossal one used by men to avoid responsibility of having to answer to their Maker.
You have chosen to focus on something we were not addressing. Are you setting up what some call “micro-evolution” or “variation within a species” as a straw man to knock down what we say about the larger “macro” evolutionary theory, a theory that has been totally discredited by all scientific investigation based on fact? Is it because we agree with the Bible’s timeline of creation that you dismiss what we say?
We are not twisting what are obviously figurative expressions to match a doctrine, as you give example with the “four corners of the earth.” There is nothing figurative about “evening and morning” constituting a 24-hour period. If a statement makes plain sense as it is, then we understand it that way. Twisting it to mean something else is no different from what you criticize others for doing, when they twist something that does not make literal sense to match their doctrine.
We are not justifying our interpretation of the Bible. We are plainly stating what the Word of God says, because we know the Author and receive our understanding from Him. One who speaks of himself as a “trained theologian” does not know God, but is doing the very thing you decry, which is going by man’s interpretation of the Bible.
We are not using creation or the sovereignty of God as a litmus test to divide “believer” from “non-believer.” We are not saying, “If you agree with God’s account of creation that makes you a believer.” There are many who proclaim creation and do not know the Creator. But there are none who know Him who deny His sovereign power and wisdom in making all things, “each after his own kind.”
Now, the Bible calls those who deny God’s Authorship of all things fools:
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalms 14:1 HNV).
Denying that God does what He says He does is the same thing as saying, “There is no God.” That makes you, by Biblical definition, the only definition that matters, a fool.
It is no more wrong for me to tell you that than it is for a doctor to tell a man with hepatitis that his liver is damaged. It is a clinical, established fact. The Scripture you refer to, about being in danger of hell-fire, does not apply to those who make right diagnoses; it applies to those who, “without cause,” accuse the brethren of wrong-headedness. Otherwise, you are saying that Jesus condemned Himself and His servants:
“Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?” (Matthew 23:17 EMTV)
“Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?” (Matthew 23:19 EMTV)
“Fools! Did not He Who made the outside also make the inside?” (Luke 11:40 EMTV)
“Fool, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies” (1 Corinthians 15:36 EMTV).
“Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22 MKJV).
That is what happened to you, Jon. This is not a slander; it is a call to repentance and better things. There is better:
“For bodily exercise is profitable to a little, but godliness is profitable to all things, having promise of the present life now, and of that coming” (1 Timothy 4:8 LITV).
You say of evolutionists versus Victor, who wrote the poem and the paper:
“Unlike this guy, they are open to being wrong. That’s the beauty of science. It can change with FACTS.”
Firstly, you assume, wrongly, that those who know God preach things that are not true, like the world is flat, and therefore need to change their minds. Preachers of truth do not tell lies, besides they are sent to preach the gospel of Christ and not to lecture on science. That is not the focus or substance of their message. They are sent to deal with men’s hearts. That is where foolishness resides. It is not a matter of intellect or being able to learn men’s teachings.
Preachers of truth do not have to admit they are wrong in those things God gives them to preach, because the Truth does not vary. They are at one with Him and His Word.
“Wisdom,” Jesus said, “is justified of her children” (Matthew 11:19).
Secondly, you are quite mistaken when putting your confidence in evolutionists and men in general. For one who supposedly studied the Bible, you are very ignorant of what It says. It is written:
“In no way: but let God be true, though every man is seen to be untrue; as it is said in the Writings, That Your words may be seen to be true, and You may be seen to be right when You are judged” (Romans 3:4 BBE).
“Put not your faith in rulers, or in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation” (Psalms 146:3 BBE).
Romans 3:10-18 EMTV
(10) Just as it is written: There is none righteous, no not one,
(11) There is none who understands; there is none who seeks God.
(12) All have turned aside; together they became unprofitable; there is not one doing kindness, there is not so much as one.
(13) Their throat is an opened grave; with their tongues they deceived; the poison of asps is under their lips;
(14) Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
(15) Their feet are swift to shed blood;
(16) Ruin and misery are in their ways;
(17) And the way of peace they did not know.
(18) There is no fear of God before their eyes.
You are telling us that evolutionists are open to being wrong. Knowing that they are wrong, we tell you that you could not be more mistaken. Evolutionists are hardened in their hearts against God and can no more admit to being wrong than the pope will admit he is antiChrist, which he is, along with many others.
Trusting in man and yourself is not wise, Jon. That is why we tell you that you need to repent, turning away from your wisdom, which is foolishness, to Christ and His wisdom, which appears to you in your self-confidence to be foolishness.
While we know what we are talking about in spiritual matters and those things of the heart that God gives us to see and declare, in other matters, like exercise, for example, we would not presume to know nearly what you do. We would also have an advantage, however, because we are not trusting in our knowledge and could therefore see and learn much, whereas those who put their trust in scientists and other experts are closed to anything that contradicts and threatens what they perceive to be their turf.
You write about nutrition. Have you not seen how wrong and misguided the “experts,” trained “scientists” even, can be? How readily do they change their minds when confronted with the facts? So it is with evolutionists and all men.
You have some things to consider here, which we hope you will. Christ came to die for fools, not condemn them. Fools condemn themselves when they do not believe the testimony of the only begotten Son of God. By His grace, we are two fools who have been delivered from all condemnation by believing on His Name, having the same faith that is in Him because He is in us.
Did you make it to our other site: www.harvesthaven.com?
Paul
Hi Jon, Victor here,
You have arrayed several straw men and denounced them. You have not responsibly taken the time to read what we have written, as though you knew it all. Your letter reveals a two-fold ignorance – one, of what we are saying, and two, of what the Bible has to say. You write:
“But hey…the Bible does say this as well. That was a fundamental belief for longer than we have had Protestantism!
These are just two of the dozens of points where The Bible and science butt heads.”
Never has the Bible contradicted or expressed that which is contrary to true science. The “theory” of evolution is not science, provably so. It is theory, three theories actually, each proving the other wrong. Evolution denies the established laws of science, yet claims to be scientific.
While all of nature proves the Bible to be true, it proves evolution false every day. Where do you see one species evolving from another? Yet you see species beget like species, just as the Bible declares. There is no fool like the evolutionist, who thinks he can take a walk on the sun anytime he pleases and call it “science.”
True believers in Jesus Christ, those born of Him, are not responsible for the liars (and their lies) and charlatans who have taken upon themselves Jesus Christ’s Name and misrepresented Him and the Bible.
I challenge you to show us anything in the Bible that contradicts true science (which has tried and proven facts to support its declarations), or that the Bible claims the earth is flat.
You believe you have some knowledge and authority in your department. So do we. In fact, we have met, and convene with, the Creator of all departments. That being so, we have things that would tremendously profit you, if you were prepared to resist the temptation to brush us off, and subsequently hear us out. We know whereof we speak.
Victor
Paul,
I can see why you leapt on the straw man. That was not my motive as I did not intend a formal debate. I was being…golly…witty.
Pithy.
Somewhat light-hearted.
With that said, and with all due respect, I left debate long behind me in college. I was rather good at it, but it’s not something I enjoy.
I don’t care to take the time and refute what others have already refuted a million times over quite adequately. Why should I repeat what Rook and company have written at TalkOrigins.org?
Plus this is the definition of futile as you start with a foundational axiom that is impossible to prove: that the Bible is the “word of God.” Without that premise your arguments are neither here nor there, unless you wish to debate science versus science — and you clearly state that is not your intention.
That being said:
There is a ‘minority’ of scientists who believe in the things you espouse. That neither makes them right or the majority right. I agree with you on that point: that the majority is not always correct. Yet at some point, the majority must be the consensus unless you breach the conspiracy theory circles. Hence the guys saying the earth is flat, we never went to the moon, and so-on.
“The majority is not right!!”
Well, in this case…they are.
Back to the young earth scientists. I’m willing to wager my house that none of them would believe it had they not started with the Biblical premise. It’s pretty easy to prove anything when you start with a conclusion, is it not?
But that too is not provable…so let’s skip the philosophical meandering.
Lastly, since you cannot prove a negative…ta-da.
We’re through, I suppose.
That means do not ask me to prove the Bible is ‘not’ the Word of God. I will ask you to prove the Koran is not the Word of God, or that there is not an iron ball in orbit around Pluto, or that I did not talk to Zeus this morning over coffee.
It’s a zero-sum game.
Jon
P.S.
Well…shucks…just ONE example. (I could spend all day on a response to your musings if I had the time… : )
“We are not twisting what are obviously figurative expressions to match a doctrine, as you give example with the ‘four corners of the earth.’ There is nothing figurative about ‘evening and morning’ constituting a 24 hour period.”
Do I even need to point out the intellectual dishonesty here? You say one is “obviously figurative”, but on what basis? Hermeneutics?
Provide the evidence.
I’ll save you the time if you wish. The passages show no differentiation. The ‘figurative’ passage in question is no less hyperbolic or intentionally figurative than the “evening and morning” passage to which you refer.
None.
It is figurative to you ‘only’ because science has long proved it false and it now appears poetic and figurative — just as science proved the earth ‘moves’ despite several scriptures which state it is fixed. You probably refer to that as figurative, but I suggest you do so for the same reasons.
And what of historical reference? If this passage was ‘figurative’ then no one would have actually espoused the idea in theological or scientific circles in the day it was written.
Unfortunately, a stationary earth was common among the science of the Greeks and most of the Jewish scribes who bothered learning it. And, most school kids understand the world was ‘known’ to be flat until the 1400s.
In short, that’s what people believed, making your ‘figurative’ argument utterly false in context of the time of authorship.
There is no quid pro on this.
So, are you more intelligent than your 1500-year-old predecessors? No. There is just more data — and it’s data that you have grown up accepting as fact.
Now, that does not mean categorically that you could not change your position. It merely makes it more inconvenient and less likely that you will do so, especially as it seems, to us, as complete and common sense.
And, for that matter, thousands of Christian scientists, paleontologists and science-minded human beings dismiss “evening and morning” as figurative, yet remain no less devout or convicted for the efforts.
Should I point you to commentaries? Creation scientist websites, perhaps? Are they “fools” as well?
I think they dismiss it as figurative for the same exact reason as ‘you’ dismiss the former — an overwhelming volume of data that contradicts what you call absolute.
Be that ice rings in the Antarctic, or refuting the logic of how we can land a rover on Mars within a few feet of its intended target using the same calculations we use to determine that Alpha Centauri 4.37 light years from our solar system, the data is very difficult to manage. That is, unless you ‘start’ with the conclusion that the world is under 10,000 years in age.
As for Alpha Centauri…at least we know for a ‘fact’ the earth is 4.37 years old!!
Heh… ; )
The rub come in when the same math and science is used to determine that…oh…let’s see…SN1987A is170,000 light years away. Shucks. That means either light instantly “was” (the most common argument by young eathers), required no travel time, and explained by a “miracle” (proof by assertion, perhaps, or just good old ad hoc), or that “evening and morning” were figurative as well.
We have yet to hit on the “millions and millions” of light-year-distant stars.
All bogus science? That Mars mission…a fluke? A lie (like the Lunar missions?
Come on.
Finally, if you indeed this is as a debate (goodness knows why), you of all people should know that quoting scripture will get you nowhere. It may make you feel better about the conversation, and telling me that I’m a fool for buying in to “man” versus “god”, but it does nothing to solidify a point when the very ‘nature’ of the argument stems from an ad hoc (oops…debate term) fallacy suggesting it is a fixed axiom. It is not. It is something assumed, be it right or wrong.
Every human being concludes, Paul. We all use reason to determine our stance. You used reason to come to faith. At some point, even if the conversion was “miraculous”, reason was involved. You ‘reasoned’ that a miracle took place.
You cannot dismiss the mind of man in this equation. You can try, of course, with “the Spirit convicted my heart,” but you are still left with a cold fact: YOU came to that conclusion by the process of rational thought.
On the bright side, fifty, perhaps one hundred years from now, no one will be having this conversation. Or, if they do, it will be in the context of, “Remember when we Christians used to think…”
That too has been going on for 2,000 years Paul — and that too is not open to debate. Just quiz any history scholar who just happens to be Catholic. They will wince when bringing the lightening rod….or laugh. It’s hard to say which is the appropriate response.
Finally —
Paul, Victor, you guys seem like likeable chaps. But you both need to realize that I’m not your target.
If you want to serve your God, spend the time you are writing to me — including the time you will probably take crafting a well-formed reply – by feeding the hungry and visiting the sick.
That’s your target.
Peace.
JB
P.P.S. Sorry Paul…just one more…I promise. Then I’ll shut up…
“Preachers of truth do not tell lies, besides they are sent to preach the gospel of Christ and not to lecture on science.”
So no man of God has ever lied? Hmmm.
That’s a quandary for guys like Ted Haggard. He preached a lot of ‘truth’ (at least as you believe), yet told a nice ‘ole whopper. Peter was a thrice-liar, but that could be argued that it was before he was officially a preacher.
Perhaps you meant to say, “Preachers of truth are human and prone to the same flaws as the rest of mankind, despite being well-intentioned most of the time.”
But…I’ll leave that open to your editing…and granted, my version is less eloquent.
And…one that I heard ALL the time from people who quoted scripture but never studied the actual theology behind it…
“For one who supposedly studied the Bible, you are very ignorant of what It says.”
Hardly.
I just disagree with you.
You confuse “ignorance” with a differing opinion re: authenticity.
But I’m used to the jabs. They are common in Christian circles.
Hi Jon,
Yes, we will answer you, and in some detail as you suggested, though not to debate the matter as if we must prove something to you or ourselves. We have many other things to do, as do you. However, there is great profit to be had by all in this answer.
What we hear from you are assumptions and misunderstandings, the results of significant error in your beliefs and attitude, which we recognize and can identify. If nothing else, it is our duty as your neighbor to point these things out to you. It is no different than if a man came to you and told you about an exercise regimen you knew was wrong, and after hearing the blatant flaws in his rationale, you were obligated to point these things out to him.
Even if you did it because you wanted to prove you were smarter or had great knowledge, the man in error could benefit by hearing about a better way and correcting what he was doing wrong. The humble one will always be the winner. This applies with what we have to tell you.
And there is more at stake here than just physical health, which is no unimportant thing. Those in spiritual error are prisoners, missing out on all aspects of life, though they do not recognize their prisons or necessarily think of themselves as deprived. Indeed, prisoners often thrive in their own worlds. When Jesus told some people believing in Him that if they continued in His Word they would be made free, they scoffed at the idea that they were not already free. That is how blindness works; you cannot see.
The Lord comes to give sight to the blind. First, however, you must recognize that you are blind.
Regarding our differences, you write:
“Plus this is the definition of futile as you start with a foundational axiom that is impossible to prove: that the Bible is the ‘word of God.’ Without that premise your arguments are neither here nor there, unless you wish to debate science versus science — and you clearly state that is not your intention.”
Jon, you are making an assumption here, a false one. We do not start with the axiom that the Bible is the Word of God. That would be depending on man’s reasoning power, which is not nearly up to receiving revelation from God. In fact, it is on another power supply altogether. You can only be plugged into one power source – either your own or God’s, Jesus Christ. Our foundation for everything we know and understand is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, God come in the flesh, Who connects us to the Father of spirits. We receive via His Spirit, which comes through our minds and souls. So, yes, our minds are engaged and we can describe these things, speaking reasonably and with well-articulated logic, but the source of our understanding is not our own thinking or interpretation of the Bible. Our source is God. That is how Paul could say:
“Let me tell you, my friends, that the gospel I preach is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any human being, nor did anyone teach it to me. It was Jesus Christ Himself Who revealed it to me” (Galatians 1:11-12 GNB).
When we quote from the Bible and explain what is being said there, it is not because we blindly accept that the Bible is always right, but because what God has taught us is expressed in the Bible, and we are both witnesses to the Truth. In other words, we have revelation of the Truth, which comes directly from God through Jesus Christ, and the Bible expresses and confirms that Truth.
You obviously do not believe the Bible, not simply in matters of science, whether rightly or wrongly interpreted, but in the plain things declared therein about God and man.
For example, it is written about men being able to understand the Bible:
“Yet, even today, when they read the books of Moses, a veil covers their minds. But whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away” (2 Corinthians 3:15-16 GW).
That goes for all books of the Bible, the gospels and the very words I just quoted. The Bible is a closed book, unless a person has been turned to the Lord and spiritually quickened. As the Bible came by revelation, so it must be received by revelation:
“Above all else, however, remember that none of us can explain by ourselves a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the human will, but people were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21 GNB).
We already knew that you did not accept or believe the Scriptures. How can you when you do not know or believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? He is what the Scriptures are all about. Debating science will not bring you to the knowledge of Christ, but His Word will, which we speak by Him – sowing the good Seed with sure hope of what will inevitably come.
You write:
“I agree with you on that point: that the majority is not always correct. Yet at some point, the majority must be the consensus unless you breach the conspiracy theory circles.”
Your conclusion is arbitrary, without any way to evaluate or confirm when such a transition is legitimate, and why it must be so. Just because there is a consensus does not make something right. You are saying, “Might is right.” We are saying, “Right is might.” Noah was in the minority. The majority in his day formed a consensus, and perished. Jesus said it would be the same in His day.
Nevertheless, it is not by having the right doctrines that one is saved, or by believing in creation or any other thing than Jesus Christ. Even true doctrine about Jesus Christ is not salvation. He is salvation. Furthermore, one does not need to have all true doctrines to be saved by Christ. We did not know or contemplate the details of creation when the Lord first spoke to us.
Speaking for myself, I went to public school, then university, and learned evolution as many do. When the Lord first spoke to me at age 21, it was not about how He created the world. The only thing I knew, and needed to know, was that He was in charge, God Almighty, and He could do and has done whatever He has wanted to do. My life was appropriated to Him as Lord, and it was for Him to do with me as He willed. How He created the world was not for me to figure out; neither was anything else. That has not changed. Since then, however, I have learned some things by revelation about creation, which are not opinion, because God knows the truth, and has no need of an opinion. He is the Truth.
You write:
“Back to the young earth scientists. I’m willing to wager my house that none of them would believe it had they not started with the Biblical premise. It’s pretty easy to prove anything when you start with a conclusion, is it not?”
You would have lost your house if you included us, Jon, though we do not profess to be scientists. However, you do not profess to be a doctor, and I have seen you run circles around your mother’s cardiologist. The title does not mean one has the truth or is automatically right.
We did not start with any premise. We started clued out. Read Our Testimonies. After that, we started a journey with God, initiated by Him. He opened our eyes; He opened the Scriptures and our understanding. How else can men know the hidden things of God? Do you think you can figure them out? Or is there no God, and we must figure everything out by science, so-called? That is what you are saying. That is not the testimony of God by His saints:
“All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” (John 1:3-5 KJV).
Is it easy to prove anything when you start with a conclusion? Haven’t evolutionists started with the conclusion that everything was created by accident? Have they proved anything? Perhaps to your satisfaction, but not to those who will not settle for anything less than facts with proof.
You say you cannot prove a negative:
“That means do not ask me to prove the Bible is ‘not’ the Word of God. I will ask you to prove the Koran is not the Word of God, or that there is not an iron ball in orbit around Pluto, or that I did not talk to Zeus this morning over coffee.”
Prove the Koran is not the Word of God? No problem. Done. Go to Islam. Am I boasting? Not in ourselves. We will boast in the Lord, Who has caused us to know Him, and to thereby know what is not of Him. No one has to take our word for it; we give many proofs in the writings that you can see for yourself.
Prove there is not an iron ball in orbit around Pluto? Who cares? Doesn’t make a whit of difference to anyone. However, believing the murderous lies of the Koran, accepting it as the Word of God, has brought worldwide calamity, pain, and suffering for over thirteen hundred years. So has believing all lies about God from the start. Knowing the difference between truth and error, and proving the negatives in such instances, is a life and death matter. Don’t believe for a minute that you cannot prove a negative, such as, “The Koran is not the Word of God.”
As for talking to Zeus, there are those with delusions or spirits, who may think they are talking to Zeus, Allah, or even the Lord God. Give us but a small amount of time and we will expose their error and prove them wrong, and if there is a spirit named Zeus, we will show him to be a liar, too.
The only negative you cannot prove is the one that is not true. That is why you cannot prove the Bible is not the Word of God – it is. On that score, there are many, many proofs. A multitude of prophecies have been fulfilled, over hundreds and thousands of years, with many pointing to the ministry and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, pinpointing the very time of His appearing, along with other happenings to this day. Did you know, for example, that the Dome of the Rock, the year of its construction on the Temple Mount, was prophesied by the prophet Daniel, and that Israel would be restored as a nation in 1948, re-taking Jerusalem in 1967?
Is not the restoration of Israel itself a miracle? God said He would scatter Israel to the four winds (another figure of speech), and that He would gather them back to the land. Who can argue that God does not rule and the Bible is not His Word? Only a fool.
You ask me to provide evidence that the expression “the four corners of the earth” is figurative, whereas the “evening and morning” of the Genesis creation account is not. You suggest that the passages are no different, both being intentionally, and even hyperbolically, figurative. That is your opinion, Jon, which is not substantiated by facts. I will give you facts.
The Scripture says:
“And He shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” (Isaiah 11:12 KJV).
The point there was not to give a precise geographical depiction of the earth, but to tell what was going to happen to the nation of Israel. I think any reasonable person would concede that in this context “the four corners of the earth” is figurative, meaning “from far and wide,” which is exactly what happened:
“Ho, ho! Go in flight from the land of the north, says the Lord: for I have sent you far and wide to the four winds of heaven, says the Lord” (Zechariah 2:6 BBE).
Are there four literal winds of heaven? The expression is clearly used to denote a total scattering:
“And I will bring the four winds from the four ends of the heavens on Elam, and will scatter them toward all those winds. And there shall be no nation where the outcasts of Elam shall not come” (Jeremiah 49:36 LITV).
This confirms the meaning of what is being said from within the context of Scripture. Now I will do the same for the saying “evening and morning” regarding the days of creation. I will show the plain meaning of these words as defined by the Bible.
“And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day” (Genesis 1:5 LITV).
The first day included the cycle of light and darkness that is experienced by everyone. There is hardly a clearer way to describe what constitutes a day, and there is nothing figurative about the division of light and dark, alternating and proceeding into the second day. Are you suggesting that instead of one day, it was dark for several hundred thousand years, or whatever it is that constitutes half a day by your reckoning? If so, how did the plants that were created on the second day survive without light?
What purpose do you ascribe to the saying, if it does not say what it means or mean what it says?
Now, here is another confirmation of a literal day, and not a figure of speech regarding the days of creation. God rested on the seventh day. It is written:
“And on the seventh day God completed His work which He had made. And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made” (Genesis 2:2 LITV).
If these days were millions of years, as evolutionists say, then God would still be resting on the Sabbath, for, according to them, modern man is a very recent development. But I have not heard any evolutionists, religious or otherwise, propose that the process of evolution has ceased. How then can God be resting if creation is still taking place? A million year hiatus would be contrary to the very meaning these scientists give to “evolution.”
In contrast, the account given of God states that He finished the work on the seventh day.
In addition to this, God gave man the Sabbath, every seventh day, to rest:
“And God gave His blessing to the seventh day and made it holy: because on that day He took His rest from all the work which He had made and done” (Genesis 2:3 BBE).
“It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made Heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:17 KJV).
There is no difference in duration between the six days of creation and any seventh day of the week mankind has experienced ever since.
The argument you make, that there were people in “theological circles” espousing a flat earth, says nothing about true faith or truth. There are many religious people, the vast majority of them in spiritual darkness, as men of God warned and the Bible records there have been, especially in “theological circles.” What have we, the truth, or God to do with them?
Did people of faith from old times believe in a flat earth? Can you really say? Do you know? How do you know, even if you have concrete evidence of such a belief existing, that it was expressed by people who had real faith (there is false faith)? Unless you can provide evidence for your statement, it serves no useful purpose in our conversation. I can say, however, without error, that people of true faith believed in God because it was His faith they had received, and whether the earth was flat or round was not necessarily of importance to their faith. Knowing Him and walking with Him brings life, not believing certain things that have no bearing on everyday life and its challenges.
I said in my previous letter that we are not here as science teachers. So why are we talking about evolution? Because we are here as preachers of truth, and evolution denies the truth, the sovereignty of God over all things. He not only made all creatures, each after its own kind (not evolving), but He has also created every creature, specifically, every person, knowing them beforehand and bequeathing them with a unique and special purpose that only they could fulfill. You are not an accident, the result of a mutation. That would make you beholden to no one but yourself. Because you are created by God, however, He owns you, and, indeed, He has paid for you with His blood, as prophesied in Scripture centuries earlier (not difficult to prove), as historically witnessed and documented by several who wrote their testimonies in their own blood (also not difficult to prove), and as spiritually proven presently, in reality, for those who believe, as with us and many more.
In other words, if one believes in God and knows Him through Jesus Christ, he or she will know that his or her life is totally in His hands, every hair and breath, and that nothing on earth is an accident or without His design and will. Our knowledge of God informs us of the utter depravity and error of evolution. It is sheer idiocy, a contradiction of reality and all science in the extreme.
At any rate, we are not beholden to false scientific notions, whether others with legitimate faith hold them, or even we do. When we became believers, we were full of false notions. For example, we did not know much about what was going on with agricultural science, so-called, and food processing, and what those promoters of false knowledge were doing to the land, environment, our bodies, and the health of all.
If knowledge of those things was paramount, we might have known them sooner. But the only knowledge that is indispensable is the knowledge of our Creator, and the wisdom that comes by knowing Who He is and what He requires of us (“man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”), into which knowledge we enter through reverence:
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10 KJV).
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7 KJV).
Your problem is that you have confidence in your own knowledge, outside of God. How can I tell you so assuredly that your knowledge is outside of Him? Because you cannot tell the difference between authentic faith, which is of God, and doctrinal beliefs, which are of men. You write:
“And, for that matter, thousands of Christian scientists, paleontologists and science-minded human beings dismiss ‘evening and morning’ as figurative, yet remain no less devout or convicted for the efforts…. I think they dismiss it as figurative for the same exact reason as ‘you’ dismiss the former — an overwhelming volume of data that contradicts what you call absolute.”
If a man talking to me about potato cultivation cannot tell the difference between a potato and a rutabaga, I know he is not a vegetable farmer. I know you are not experienced in true faith, Jon. That is a fact, not a slander, which can and will be to your advantage, when you become hungry for truth.
You ask of those professing Christ who believe in evolution, “Are they fools as well?” If they put their trust in men and their corrupt senses, rather than in God, then yes, they are. That is the definition of a fool. It is not what he believes with his mind, but in whom (or Whom) he believes with his heart (all his being), that determines whether he is a fool or not.
“The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good” (Psalms 14:1 MKJV).
Is there overwhelming data that supports evolution? Only if people are in the mindset you project on us – set on a false conclusion, in their case against the Presence of an intelligent, capable, all-powerful God Who made things as they are. Otherwise, there is no data that supports evolution, absolutely none, nada, zip. It is only by inferring the wrong conclusion (species evolved from less complex to more complex) that one finds supporting evidence, which upon closer inspection, turns out to be a mirage.
For example, “Alpha Centauri 4.37 light years from our solar system,” or “SN1987A is 170,000 light years away”? No problem. How old was Adam the day he was created? One day old – or 30 years old? He was one day old, though he appeared as an adult. Why should this be a problem? Is that harder to believe than matter appeared from…chaos and nothing, and then organized itself into stars, planets, and living matter?
Look around you; tell us what you see occurring on the human level at any time. Tell us a Blackberry just came together, or that even a tin can just happened. With all his technology man still cannot even accurately copy a tiny segment of what exists, even with having a model to copy! But he thinks himself so intelligent and progressive! Scientists discover every day the complexity of a single cell, a microscopic factory with all necessary facilities, but cannot even begin to approach duplicating one.
Did these just happen? Idiots believe in their stupid god, “Chaos,” but we believe in an Intelligent, Purposeful Maker. And we are the “fools”?
So, Jon, you come on.
I am not a professional debater, so pardon me if I don’t understand the usages of all your terminology, but I think I get your gist here:
“…you of all people should know that quoting scripture will get you nowhere. It may make you feel better about the conversation, and telling me that I’m a fool for buying in to ‘man’ versus ‘god’, but it does nothing to solidify a point when the very ‘nature’ of the argument stems from an ad hoc (oops…debate term) fallacy suggesting it is a fixed axiom. It is not. It is something assumed, be it right or wrong.”
Is it assumed? How do you know that the Bible is not fact, proven so? We tell you that it has been proven in manifold ways, both personally and universally. Furthermore, if it is in error, spiritually or factually, it can, without a doubt, be exposed as false. We have done that with the Koran and the Book of Mormon from a spiritual standpoint, and many others have cataloged their physical errors. Not so with the Bible. Archeologically, historically, spiritually, and yes, even scientifically, no one has disproved the Bible, not a one. Neither, for all the huffing and puffing, has anyone proven evolution. How can you prove what is untrue?
Did we figure all of this out? Here you are wrong again:
“Every human being concludes, Paul. We all use reason to determine our stance. You used reason to come to faith. At some point, even if the conversion was ‘miraculous’, reason was involved. You ‘reasoned’ that a miracle took place.
You cannot dismiss the mind of man in this equation. You can try, of course, with ‘the Spirit convicted my heart,’ but you are still left with a cold fact: YOU came to that conclusion by the process of rational thought.”
You have things backwards. Faith brought me to reason, God’s reasoning, of which, as a man, I was incapable. Faith, it is written, is not of ourselves; it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). It is not something I did; it is something I was given. By this power I can see and know the hidden things of God:
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 EMTV
(11) For who knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
(12) Now we did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things granted to us by God;
(13) which we also speak, not in words taught in human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(14) But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(15) But he that is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned by no man.
(16) For “Who has known the mind of the LORD, that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7 EMTV).
We do not argue against reasoning with a sound mind, but the question is where the inspiration for the reasoning comes from. The intellect being the window; is what comes through it from God or from man – self-produced? You say there is only what is self-produced. You are relegating God to impotency, even non-existence. That is the essence of foolishness – saying in your heart that there is no God.
The example of religious superstition you cite, the Catholic Church and the lightening rod, is an excellent one. Indeed, the Catholic Church and her daughters are most superstitious, rendering the wisest of men utterly foolish, and bringing destruction to many:
“Had the ecclesiastics of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia given in to repeated urgings to install a lightning rod, they might have averted a terrible catastrophe. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church several thousand pounds of gunpowder. In 1767, 17 years after Franklin’s discovery, no rod having been placed on the church, it was struck by lightning and the gunpowder exploded. One-sixth of the city was destroyed and over 3,000 lives were lost because the priests refused to install the ‘heretical rod.’”
So we are idiots because idiots have feigned faith, clumsily mimicking us? The difference between true faith, which we have, and man made religion, which you substitute for the authentic, is day and night. Read more about the latter’s wickedness and the ways of darkness that cause such destruction through willful stupidity at Catholicism and elsewhere on our site.
Does believing God created man as recorded in the Bible bring about these kinds of disasters (or cause any kind of harm whatsoever)? No. But believing in evolution does. Scientists of evolutionary faith, worshipping at the church of humanism, are now tinkering with the genetic materials of creation, mixing things that do not belong together, and the catastrophic results of this extreme hubris have barely begun to be known.
You did not answer my question about looking at our site, www.harvesthaven.com. Rather than believing absurdities and lies, and engaging in the building of towers of Babel, God has taught us to live in accordance with nature, utilizing science in harmony with His principles and ways. Take a look and see for yourself. You tell us where we are in superstition and stupidity.
You quote from my last letter:
“Preachers of truth do not tell lies….”
Your response:
“So no man of God has ever lied? Hmmm.”
The words I used, “preachers of truth,” preclude lying, do they not? Does this mean, practically speaking, that a man of God is never wrong? No; it means that a man of God, when sent to speak by Him, speaks His words, which are the truth by which men can live. The apostle Paul describes this calling:
“To which I was appointed a herald and apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie), a teacher of the nations, in faith and truth” (1 Timothy 2:7 LITV).
Once again, you use a false apostle and preacher, Ted Haggard, as your example, and then paint true apostles and preachers with the same brush:
“That’s a quandary for guys like Ted Haggard. He preached a lot of ‘truth’ (at least as you believe), yet told a nice ‘ole whopper.”
“As we believe”? Nothing of the kind! You choose an artificial flower, and criticize it when it doesn’t have any scent. Then judging by the artificial, you declare that all flowers are without scent. Is that fair or reasonable? Are you not confused and in need of some distinct definitions and parameters? That is why we engage you.
You find fault with the apostle Peter as though he is in the same category as Haggard:
“Peter was a thrice-liar, but that could be argued that it was before he was officially a preacher.”
What is the difference between Peter and Ted Haggard? Much in every way. Peter was not presuming to teach men when he denied the Lord. It was something between him and God only, and he repented of it immediately. Haggard was knowingly presenting a phony face and playing the hypocrite before the world, living in violation of, and contradiction to, the Law of God, yet he would not admit it until the world exposed him. He was a phony from the get-go, a liar.
Liars can say true things, but they do not speak the Truth. There is no Truth in them to speak. Truthers can say untrue things, but they speak the Truth, because the Truth inhabits them. When the Spirit of Truth came to dwell in Peter 50 days later, as Jesus promised, and as prophesied by Joel, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah centuries earlier, Peter no longer denied Christ as before. He stood up boldly, confessing and testifying of Him before many under threat of death.
Peter believed. He did not misrepresent the Lord after he denied Christ. He simply did not have what it took on his own to follow God to the death (neither does anyone else) though he fully intended to do so and declared that he would. He had to be exposed to himself, in order to be broken of his self-righteousness and illusion of self-empowerment to receive Christ’s power. He repented, and after he received the Spirit of God, he was converted into a new man (Luke 22:32), made in God’s, Christ’s, image, and empowered by Him. That new man is not a liar, like the old one:
“As for you, the anointing which you received from Him remains in you, and you don’t need for anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, you will remain in Him” (1 John 2:27 HNV).
The apostle Paul put it this way, representative of all true believers:
“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20 EMTV).
You suggest that I may have meant something else:
“Perhaps you meant to say, ‘Preachers of truth are human and prone to the same flaws as the rest of mankind, despite being well-intentioned most of the time.’”
Yes, preachers of truth are human and prone to the same flaws as the rest of mankind, and I did not say anything to contradict that. Above that, however, and ruling their lives, is the power of God through Jesus Christ, which has nothing whatsoever to do with their being well-intentioned. Peter, as I have just mentioned, had to be broken of his “well-intentioned” power in order to identify with Christ and receive the power of God, to express His intentions.
On another occasion before his change, Peter rebuked Jesus for predicting that He would suffer at the hands of the chief priest and scribes and would be killed. Here is what Jesus said about Peter’s “well-intentioned” remonstrance:
“But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block unto Me, because you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men’” (Matthew 16:23 EMTV).
Peter, by the grace of God, was made mindful of the things of God. He received correction; he obeyed; he received the Spirit of God. Still, that does not make a man automatically right or impervious to failing. At one point later on, the apostle Paul rebuked Peter for living like a Gentile (with regards to Jewish customs) while being fearful of appearing that way before other Jews. Peter received correction and repented. (How many popes, who presume to be the heirs of Peter, would receive correction from a “renegade” Pharisee? Liars! Yet you honor them!)
Peter demonstrated the key element of a man of true faith – a love of truth. True men of God not only speak the truth, but they also receive it from others. That is the mark of all God’s saints.
In other words, if you have truth to tell us, we, by the grace of God, will receive it, gladly so. That is why we are not afraid to talk to anyone. We can always gain, and there is always the hope of others gaining from us.
You disagree with us that you are ignorant of the Bible. We are willing to be shown that we are wrong, Jon, but obviously we cannot take your word for it, especially when you provide no evidence in your favor, but plenty against it. You do not hear or understand the Scriptures we present to you; you only tell us you disagree but do not provide anything specific from Scripture to effectively rebut what we say. That is not only a weak case for your knowledge; it is a non-existent one.
You say, in your defense:
“You confuse ‘ignorance’ with a differing opinion re: authenticity.”
We are not confused, because we are not giving opinion, nor would we honor our opinion as the Word of God. We do not doubt your sincerity, but in the absolute scale of Truth, the living Word of God, an authentic opinion is no better than an inauthentic one; they are both of a different substance and nature than the Truth, Jesus Christ.
You complain:
“But I’m used to the jabs. They are common in Christian circles.”
The reason this letter is long, in part, is because we are not jabbing you, but giving you good, wholesome, substantive reasons for what we believe and know to be true as it applies to you and your words to us. If you want to call that a jab, then know this:
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Proverbs 27:6 MKJV).
Your letter indicated you would prefer that we did not serve you as a friend:
“If you want to serve your God, spend the time you are writing to me — including the time you will probably take crafting a well-formed reply – by feeding the hungry and visiting the sick.”
Little do you know that we are doing just that, though the fruit of our labors will not be realized until you recognize your lack of spiritual sustenance and health. You are not alone in your position. There are no poor in spirit in the world today. Everyone knows better (“I am a trained theologian”) and cannot, from the child to the gray head, be told a thing from God. So God sends us to make people hungry by stripping them of the illusion of their knowledge. Our job is to impoverish the populace, that they might be fed and nourished properly, in the inner man, to life everlasting in due time.
Jon, the debate over scientific proof for the veracity of the Bible as the Word of God is not new, and there are those who have provided evidence for its inspiration. We know you like a mental challenge. Here is one demonstrating the supernatural, omniscient power behind the Scriptures that no one, over a hundred years later, has been able to refute. See what you can do with it, if you will.
Paul Cohen
By Ivan Panin
For some months preceding Sunday, November 19th, 1899, the NEW YORK SUN had been devoting the better part of a page of its Sunday edition to the discussion of the truth of Christianity. On this date it printed a letter from one W.R.L., in which he denounced Christianity, using the old oft refuted ‘arguments,’ and challenged ‘some champion of orthodoxy to come into the arena of the SUN,’ and give its readers some ‘facts’ in defense of the Christian religion. The writer had not seen the NY SUN for years; but on his way from South Farmingham to Grafton, Massachusetts, a copy of the SUN of that date, left on a vacant seat in the train, fell into his hands.
The following letter met that challenge.
The letter was reprinted by the writer himself in a pamphlet of some fifty pages with the Greek text of Matthew 1:1-17 and the vocabularies thereto, enabling the scholarly reader to verify his statements for himself.
SIR:- In today’s SUN Mr. W.R.L. calls for a ‘champion of orthodoxy’ to ‘step into the arena of the SUN,’ and give him some facts:
1. The first 17 verses of the New Testament contain the genealogy of Christ. It consists of two main parts: Verses 1-11 cover the period from Abraham, the father of the chosen people, to the Captivity, when they ceased as an independent people. Verses 12-17 cover the period from the Captivity to the promised Deliverer, the Christ.
Let us examine the first part of this genealogy.
Its vocabulary has 49 words, or 7 x 7. This number is itself seven (Feature 1) sevens (Feature 2), and the sum of its factors is 2 sevens (Feature 3). Of these 49 words 28, or 4 sevens, begin with a vowel; and 21, or 3 sevens, begin with a consonant (Feature 4).
Again: These 49 words of the vocabulary have 266 letters, or 7 x 2 x 19; this number is itself 38 sevens (Feature 5), and the sum of its factors is 28, or 4 sevens (Feature 6), while the sum of its figures is 14, or 2 sevens (Feature 7). Of these 266 letters, moreover, 140, or 20 sevens, are vowels, and 126, or 18 sevens, are consonants (Feature 8).
That is to say: Just as the number of words in the vocabulary is a multiple of seven, so is the number of its letters a multiple of seven; just as the sum of its factors of the number of the words is a multiple of seven, so is the sum of the factors of the number of their letters a multiple of seven. And just as the number of words is divided between vowel words and consonant words by seven, so is their number of letters divided between vowels and consonants by sevens.
Again: Of these 49 words 35, or 5 sevens, occur more than once in the passage: and 14, or 2 sevens, occur but once (Feature 9); seven occur in more than one form, and 42, or 6 sevens, occur in only one form (Feature 10). And among the parts of speech the 49 words are thus divided: 42, or 6 sevens, are nouns, 7 are not nouns (Feature 11). Of the nouns, 35, or 5 sevens, are Proper names, seven are common nouns (Feature 12). Of the Proper names 28 are male ancestors of the Christ, and seven are not (Feature 13). Moreover, these 49 words are distributed alphabetically thus. Words under ‘alpha – epsilon’ are 21 in number, or 3 sevens; ‘stigma – iota’ 14, or 2 sevens; ‘lamda – upsilon’ also 14. No other groups of sevens stopping at the end of a letter are made by these 49 words, the groups of sevens stop with these letters and no others. But the letters, alpha, epsilon, stigma, iota, lambda, upsilon, are letters 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 22 of the Greek alphabet, and the sum of these number (called their Place Values) is 56, or 8 sevens (Feature 14). This enumeration of the numeric phenomena of these 11 verses does not begin to be exhaustive, but enough has been shown to make it clear that this part of the genealogy is constructed on an elaborate design of sevens.
Let us now turn to the genealogy as a whole. I will not weary your readers with recounting all the numeric phenomena thereof: Pages alone would exhaust them. I will point out only one feature. The New Testament is written in Greek. The Greeks had no separate symbols for expressing numbers, corresponding to our Arabic figures, but used instead the letters of their alphabet: just as the Hebrews, in whose tongue the Old Testament is written, made use for the same purpose of theirs. Accordingly, the 24 Greek letters stand for the following numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900.
Every Greek word is thus a sum in arithmetic obtained by adding the numbers for which its letters stand, or their numeric values. Now the vocabulary to the entire genealogy has 72 words. If we write its numeric value over each of these 72 words and add them, we get for their sum 42,364, or 6,052 sevens, distributed into the following alphabetical groups only: alpha – beta have 9,821 or 1,403 sevens; gamma – delta, 1,904 or 272 sevens; epsilon – stigma, 3,703 or 529 sevens; theta – rho, 19,264 or 2,752 sevens; sigma – chi, 7,672 or 1,096 sevens. But the numeric value of the 10 letters used for making these groups is 931 or 7 x 7 x 19, a multiple not only of seven but of seven sevens.
Let Mr. W.R.L. try to write some 300 words intelligently like this genealogy, and reproduce some numeric phenomena of like designs. If he does it in 6 months, he will indeed be a wonder. Let us assume that Matthew accomplished this feat in one month.
2. The second part of this chapter, verses 18-25, relates the birth of the Christ. It consists of 161 words, or 23 sevens; occurring in 105 forms, or 15 sevens, with a vocabulary of 77 words or 11 sevens. Joseph is spoken to here by an angel. Accordingly, of the 77 words the angel uses 28 or 4 sevens; of the 105 forms he uses 35 or 5 sevens; the numeric value of the vocabulary is 52,605 or 7,515 sevens; of the forms, 65,429 or 9,347 sevens. This enumeration only begins as it were barely to scratch the surface of the numerics of this passage. But what is specially noteworthy here is the fact that the angel’s speech has also a scheme of sevens making it a kind of ring within a ring, a wheel within a wheel. If Mr. L. can write a similar passage of 161 words with the same scheme of sevens alone (though there are several others here) in some three years, he would have accomplished a still greater wonder. Let us assume that Matthew accomplished this feat in only 6 months.
3. The second chapter of Matthew tells of the childhood of the Christ. Its vocabulary has 161 words, or 23 sevens, with 896 letters, or 128 sevens, and 238 forms, or 34 sevens; the numeric value of the vocabulary is 123,529 or 17, 647 sevens; of the forms, 166,985 or 23, 885 sevens; and so on through pages of enumeration. This chapter has at least four logical divisions, and each division shows alone the same phenomena found in the chapter as a whole. Thus the first six verses have a vocabulary of 56 words, or 8 sevens, etc. There are some speeches here: Herod speaks, the Magi speak, the angel speaks. But so pronounced are numeric phenomena here, that though there are as it were numerous rings within rings, and wheels within wheels, each is perfect in itself through forming all the while only part of the rest.
If Mr. L. can write a chapter like this as naturally as Matthew writes, but containing in some 500 words so many intertwined yet harmonious numeric features, in say the rest of his days – whatever his age now, or the one to which he is to attain: if he thus accomplished it at all, it will indeed be marvel of marvels. Let us assume that Matthew accomplished this feat in only 3 years.
4. There is not, however, a single paragraph of the scores in Matthew that is not constructed in exactly the same manner. Only with each additional paragraph the difficulty of constructing it increases not in arithmetical, but in geometrical progression. For he contrives to write his paragraphs so as to develop constantly fixed numeric relations to what goes before and after. Thus in his last chapter he contrives to use just 7 words not used by him before. It would thus be easy to show that Mr. L. would require some centuries to write a book like Matthew’s. How long it took Matthew the writer does not know. But how he contrived to do it between the Crucifixion, AD 30 (and his Gospel could not have been written earlier), and the destruction of Jerusalem, AD 70 (and the Gospel could not have been written later), let Mr. L. and his like-minded explain.
Anyhow, Matthew did it, and we thus have a miracle – an unheard-or literary, mathematical artist, unequaled, hardly even conceivable. This is the first fact for Mr. L. to contemplate.
A second fact is yet more important: In his very first section, the genealogy discussed above, the words found nowhere else in the New Testament occur 42 times, 7 x 6; and have 126 letters, 7 x 6 x 3, each number a multiple not only of seven, but of 6 sevens, to name only two of the many numeric features of these words. But how did Matthew know, when designing this scheme for these words (whose sole characteristic is that they are found nowhere else in the New Testament) that they would not be found in the other 26 books? That they would not be used by the other 7 New Testament writers? Unless we assume the impossible hypothesis that he had an agreement with them to that effect, he must have had the rest of the New Testament before him when he wrote his book. The Gospel of Matthew, then, was written last.
5. It so happens, however, that the Gospel of Mark shows the very same phenomena. Thus the very passage called so triumphantly in today’s SUN a ‘forgery,’ the Last Twelve Verses of Mark, presents among some sixty features of sevens the following phenomena: It has 175 words, or 25 sevens, a vocabulary of 98 words, or 2 sevens of sevens, with 553 letters, or 79 sevens; 133 forms, or 19 sevens, and so on to the minutest detail. Mark then, is another miracle, another unparalleled literary genius. And in the same way in which it was shown that Matthew wrote last it is also shown that Mark, too, wrote last. Thus to take an example from this very passage: It has just one word found nowhere else in the New Testament, theta, alpha, nu, alpha, sigma, iota, upsilon, omicron, sigma, deadly. This fact is signaled by no less than seven features of sevens, thus: its numeric value is 581 or 83 sevens, with the sum of its figures 14, or 2 sevens, of which the letters 3, 5, 7, 9 from the beginning of the word have 490, or 7 x 7 x 5 x 2: a multiple of seven sevens, with the sum of its factors 21, or 3 sevens. In the vocabulary it is preceded by 42 words: 7 x 6; in the passage itself by 126 words, or 7 x 6 x 3, both numbers multiples not only of seven, but of 6 sevens. We have thus established before us this third fact for Mr. L. to contemplate: Matthew surely wrote after Mark, and Mark just as surely wrote after Matthew.
6. It happens, however, to be a fourth fact that Luke presents the same phenomena as Matthew and Mark, and so does John, and James, and Peter, and Jude, and Paul. And we have thus no longer two great unheard-of mathematical literati, but eight of them and each wrote after the other.
7. And not only this: As Luke and Peter wrote each 2 books, John 5, and Paul 14, it can in the same way be shown that each of the 27 New Testament books was written last. In fact, not a page of the over 500 in Westcott and Hort’s Greek edition (which the writer has used throughout) but it can be demonstrated thus to have been written last.
The phenomena are there and there is no human way of explaining them. Eight men cannot each write last, 27 books, some 500 pages, cannot each be written last. But let’s assume that one Mind directed the whole, and the problem is solved simply enough: by this Verbal Inspiration – of every jot and tittle of the New Testament.
There remains only to be added that by precisely the same kind of evidence the Hebrew Old Testament is proved to be equally inspired. This the very first verse of Genesis has seven words, 28 letters, or 4 sevens: to name only two out of the dozens of numeric features of this one verse of only seven words.
NEW YORK SUN, November 21, 1899 – CORRECTED
To this letter several replies appeared in the SUN, but not a single answer. For in only three ways can it be refuted.
1. By showing that the facts are not as here given.
2. By showing that it is possible for 8 men to write each after the other 7: for 27 books, or some 500 pages, to be each in turn written last.
3. By showing that even if the facts be true, the arithmetic faultless, and the collection of the numerics honest, it does not follow that mere men could have written this without Inspiration from above.
Of the nine noted rationalists, one was not ‘interested’ in the writer’s ‘arithmetical doings;’ two ‘regretted’ that they had ‘no time’ to give heed thereto; another ‘did not mean to be unkind, but…’; the rest were silent.