abraham and jacob
jwest at highland.net
Wed Jun 16 18:26:56 EDT 1999
At 02:23 PM 6/16/99 -0700, you wrote:
>I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss it, though-- yes, of course, 175 is
>5x35 as well as 5x5x7. It is also 25x7. That's one of the things
>that makes this kind of study frustrating-- which set of numbers
>should you use? Were there rules, for example, that only prime
>factors should be used, as here? And are such devices purely
>mnemonic, or do they fit into some larger pattern? And where would we
>look for the key to those patterns? Again, are there rules?
All of these questions are legitimate. Still, the purpose and goal of
biblical studies is to answer questions raised by the text itself- or so at
least that is how I practice the art/science. I also presuppose that a
theory or method that raises more questions than it answers is not useful as
a method. That is, in essence, the problem I have with the whole number
thing as you have so eloquently described it. It solves nothing and raises
issues that cannot be solved. For that reason it seems to me that it
excludes itself as a viable method.
Am I missing something?
Jim West, ThD
email- jwest at highland.net
web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
More information about the b-hebrew