On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 23:42:16 +0000 Vernon Jenkins
<vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> writes:
> For the particular attention of Glenn, Dick and George:
>
> Why not return from the realms of fantasy and look instead at some
> facts? You appear to have dug your heels in with respect to the
> truths I
> have to offer, and clearly are not prepared to give them a second
> thought. Let me therefore suggest a little numerical tidbit which
> might
> offer a way forward:
>
> There must be few who will be unacquainted with the simplest
> application
> of the Pythagorean theorem, viz the 3:4:5 triangle. Any triangle
> having
> sides in these ratios will be found to have a right-angle opposite
> the
> longest side. It so happens that the gematrial value of 'the earth'
> - as
> rendered in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 - is 296. Multiplying this by
> 3, 4
> and 5, in turn, we generate the sides 888, 1184 and 1480,
> respectively,
> of a right-angled triangle. The features of this triangle include
> the
> following:
First question, following George's note, is why _ha eretz_ is the basis
of the number rather than _eretz_? If the answer is that this is the way
it is written in the current version of Genesis 1, then the question has
to be why the first appearance of the name of the Lord in Matthew 1 is
not the basis of Vernon's calculation. It is _Iesou Christou_. I note
also that the most ancient Greek MSS are written without breaks between
words. The same appears to be the way the Hebrew was originally written.
So we can hardly claim that the article belongs with the term.
>
> (1) 888 and 1480 are the gematrial values of 'Jesus' and of
> 'Christ',
> respectively, from the NT Greek; the shortest and longest sides of
> our
> triangle taken together therefore 'spell' the Lord's Name;
Second question: since _Christos_ is a title, equivalent to _messhiach_,
why is the other title, _kurios_, omitted in the calculation? With this
comes the question why the name in Aramaic, _Yeshua_, does not also come
out. After all, Aramaic was the common language in Judea and Galilee.
>
> (2) 1184 is the smaller component of the 'friendly number' pair,
> 1184/1210; in other words, the factors of 1184 (including 1 but
> excluding 1184 itsef) total 1210, and likewise, those of 1210 total
> 1184; such instances are very rare numerical events - this example
> being
> further distinguished by the fact that it had escaped the attention
> of
> 'friendly number' hunters until the latter years of the nineteenth
> century;
>
> (3) returning to the Lord's Name: the ratio 888:1480, ie 3:5 is,
> very
> appropriately, that of the sides of the mercy seat (Ex.25:17);
>
> (4) the angle between these sides in our right-angled triangle is,
> to
> the nearest degree, 37 degrees; 37 is a factor of all three sides;
This brings up my fourth question: why do you make the Almighty into a
sloppy calculator? The value of the angle is 36o52'12-". Note that 3, 4
and 5 are exact. As George noted, the choice of measure is arbitrary.
This is clearly the case for degrees and circular mils. But radians are
built into the structure of mathematics. Why not use them? Alternatively,
using rounded off degrees, why do the factors not work for 53 and 90 as
well as 37? After all, the matter is in the hands of the omnipotent One.
>
> (5) the area of this triangle is 1,051,392 square units - a multiple
> of 2368, or 'Jesus Christ'.
Final questions: how does this work with a trangle with sides 888, 1480
and 800, the last being the value of "Lord"? or with a solid with one
dimension equal to 800 and a base with the right triangle with a side of
888 and a hypotenuse of 1480? Since the "4" in the 3:4:5 triangle is
calculated from the numerical values, but is not one of them, the 800 can
be inserted in a number of ways, though only as the altitude of a right
prism if the 3:4:5 triangle is maintained. So I can easily calculate the
area of the triangle with the given dimensions as about 299,817 square
units, and the solid as exactly 140,185,600 cubic units. But along with
this comes a further problem: shall I compute the numerical values as
given above, or consider the final sigma as the standard replacement for
the digamma, with a value of 6 rather than the 200 which has been used?
The values then become 694, 1286 and 606. Is there a relevant reason why
they should not be considered as relevant as the numbers used?
>
> Now these are verifiable facts (and hardly the stuff of 'numerology'
> that Glenn keeps alluding to!). They are truths that in my view
> deserve
> recognition - indeed, deserve to be pondered. Is it really likely
> that
> this remarkable confluence would arise by chance? Doesn't it rather
> suggest the purposive action of a divine hand? And should we not
> therefore make it our business - as followers of truth - to
> investigate
> further and determine what that purpose might be?
>
> You might like to offer your views re this particular example.
>
> Vernon
>
> Vernon Jenkins MSc
> [musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths
> and
> Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of
> Glamorgan)]
>
I think that there are many facts beyond those Vernon has selected for
his presentation. He may consider them to be a discovery going into the
21st century (technically the last year of the 20th, but the popular view
is sexier), going beyond what did not come to light till the 19th.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 13:47:46 EST