Re: Exceptional Measures

From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2000 - 18:03:52 EST

  • Next message: Vandergraaf, Chuck: "RE: Exceptional Measures"

    Vernon,

    I don't need numerical arguments to be convinced that Gen. 1:1 is God's
    word. I already believe that, and I also believe that whatever numerical
    features you find in that verse were not unplanned by God. The question
    that I raise is whether or not I can honestly use your numerical arguments
    to convince an unbeliever of this.

    If I imagine myself in the shoes of an unbeliever, I can think of a number
    of objections that I would raise. Others have already mentioned some of
    these such as your use of conveniently chosen human units of measurement,
    one case of an approximation, and features that automatically follow from
    other features. You, of course, list only those numerical features that
    work. There are many others that would seem just as remarkable but that
    are not found here.

    What might really get the skeptic's attention would be if you found a
    numerical test, a pattern that you could predict for all of Scripture,
    that would clearly distinguish Scripture from nonscripture. It wouldn't be
    confined to just the first verse of the Bible. Furthermore, if you could
    do that, you would have a great tool for the interesting task of
    recovering the exact original text. For example, you might solve the
    problem of figuring out what was the original version of the lists in Ezra
    2 and Nehemiah 7.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

    > 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:
    >
    > (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;
    >
    > (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;
    >
    > (5) the area of this triangle is 1,051,392 square units - a multiple
    > of 2368, or 'Jesus Christ'.
    >
    > 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)]
    >
    > http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
    >
    > http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 06 2000 - 18:05:44 EST