Gordon:
Thanks for your constructive comments! I shall attempt to respond to the
points you raise in the order in which they are given.
(1) Whilst I accept that you need no numerical arguments to be convinced
of the truth of God's word, I'm sure you'll agree that there are many
clever people 'out there' who could do with some tangible corrective to
their all-too-fertile imaginations! It is my belief that I have
something worthwhile to say to such people.
(2) Interpreting 'not unplanned' as 'planned', I'm glad that we both
acknowledge God's purposeful hand in the numerics of Gn.1:1. I suggest
it is but a short step to believe also that they are given to accomplish
some significant purpose.
(3) You ask whether you can honestly confront an unbeliever with such
arguments as I have advanced. I am convinced you can - for you have to
appreciate that the body of evidence is far more extensive than that of
the example currently under discussion (as the material at the URLs
below make clear!).
(4) It would be wonderful indeed to discover a 'numerical test' that
would 'clearly distinguish Scripture from nonscripture'! But unless God
has set things up that way - and in a form we are able to understand! -
that must be little more wishful thinking! I rather think the best we
can do at the moment is to study and understand the tests that would
clearly satisfy the SETI scientists. After all, who would be in a
position to complain if the same tests applied to the Scriptures were
found to yield positive results?!
What are these tests? Simply the numerical analysis of signals emanating
from outer space (or the Scriptures!) that would establish their
non-random character and specified complexity! Clearly, an ordered
sequence of primes, cubes, perfect numbers or 'friendly' pairs would
suffice to establish the source as 'intelligent'. Obviously, in this
matter we are in the hands of the alleged extraterrestials (or, in
respect of the Scriptures, God) as to what they (or he) choose(s) to
transmit. It is therefore necessary to cater for a much wider band of
'intelligence revealing' possibilities. We might, for example, suggest
polyfiguracy as the basis of a valid testing procedure, ie the fact that
certain numbers - represented as a collection of uniform counters
(circular or spherical, square or cubic, as appropriate) - have the
ability to completely fill one of two or more polygonal or polyhedral
frames. In this respect there are just two numbers that are particularly
prominent, viz 37 and 91. It cannot be without significance that the
first of these is found to be an abundant factor of Gen.1:1, is a factor
of both the Lord's Name and Title, and again of 666 ('number of the
beast').
(5) The skeptic might be further interested to learn:
(a) that Rv.13:18 specifies the gematria as a valid tool for exegesis of
the Scriptures (with the promise of wisdom to the researcher!), and
offers the uniquely triangular number, 666, as a pointer to the main
features that God has laid;
(b) that there are symbolic features - the words of the text being
echoed by the corresponding numbers; a prime example is the triangular
form of Gn.1:1;
(c) that 10, as radix of the denary system, is fundamentally involved in
many of the eye-catching features that are ancillary to the main thrust
of the evidence.
Clearly, these considerations (not available in the SETI context!) add
further weight to my arguments.
Regards,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
gordon brown wrote:
>
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 08 2000 - 16:54:20 EST