John:
Thanks for responding. I trust you found the Texas vacation pleasant and
relaxing!
Let me say that I am surprised by your frank admission, viz "I have not
considered it useful to check out your math." - for in that case how is
it possible, (a) that you can agree that the phenomena are real,
(b) suggest that they amount to little more than coincidence, and (c)
consider my arguments to be "fatally flawed"?
In respect of the latter claim, you seem to be under the impression that
my arguments turn only on the understanding that ten is the
divinely-ordained 'collective unit' for man's numbering and measuring
systems. Allow me to put the record straight by quoting from my last
posting (24 May):
"In essence, my claims rest particularly on the coordinated numerical
geometries that are found to accompany the first two verses of the
Torah, viz Gn.1:1-2. Such structures are manifestly independent of
radix. But because these include the first three triangular multiples of
thirty-seven (666, 703 and 2701), and the second triangular multiple of
ninety-one (3003) - numbers possessing uniquely significant geometries
in their own right and, further, displaying remarkable and related
features as the denary objects, 37 and 91 - the whole package conspires
to raise the status of ten! In other words, if it had been man's usual
practice to record numbers in some other way - using binary, octal,
duodecimal, or other notation, for example - these additional features
of interest would have been absent. This is just one of many powerful
reasons for believing ten (itself a triangular number!) to be 'divinely
designated' - from the beginning - as principal 'collective unit' in
man's numbering and measuring systems."
It occurs to me that some elementary diagrams might help clarify what I
am attempting to say here. Referring to the symmetrical structures
below, and reading from left to right, we have: thirty-seven as hexagon,
seventy-three as hexagram, thirty-seven as hexagram and nineteen as
hexagon. Observe, (1) that the first fits symmetrically into the second,
and the fourth into the third, (2) multiplying first by second yields
2701 - the numerical reading of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1, while
multiplying fourth by third yields 703 - the numerical reading of the
two final words of this verse, meaning "and the earth.", (3) both 2701
and 703 are triangular numbers - the latter, when inverted, fitting into
the former precisely - the remaining area comprising three triangles,
each of 666. [A model of this construction is depicted in the final
diagram below.]
Clearly, the concept of radix has no place in this simple analysis; the
structures are absolute, ie are completely independent of place, of
time, and of man's hand. Below these, I have appended the symbolic forms
of each of the numbers represented - first as denary objects, then as
binary, octal, duodecimal and hexadecimal objects (ie radix ten, two,
eight, twelve and sixteen), respectively.
o
o o
o o o o
o o o o o o o + + + + o o o o o
o o o o o o o + + + + + o o o o + + + o o o o o
o o o o o o o + + + + + + o o + + + + o o o o o
o o o o o o o + + + + + + + + + + + + o o o o o
o o o o o o o + + + + + + o o + + + + o o o o o
o o o o o o o + + + + + o o o o + + + o o o o o
o o o o o o o + + + + o o o o o
o o o o
o o
o
37 73 37 19
100101 1001001 100101 10011
45 111 45 23
(ie four eights plus five)
31 61 31 17
(ie three twelves plus one)
25 49 25 13
(ie two sixteens plus five)
Observe that only in the case of denary (radix 10) do we find, (1) the
interesting digit reflection, 37/73, in hexagon/hexagram, and the prime
factors of Genesis 1:1, and (2) the linking of 37 with 19 - digit
reflection of 91, companion trifigurate number to 37!
As a further simple illustration of ten's significance, consider its
geometrical relationship to the first two perfect numbers, 6 and 28:
+
+ +
+ + +
o o o o
+ o o o +
+ + o o + +
+ + + o + + +
The number of Hebrew letters in Genesis 1:1 happens to be 28. Here we
find 10-as-triangle (or 'tetraktys') symmetricall set in a context of
numerical perfection!
I propose adding a new page to the first of my websites - to be
entitled, "The Rule of Ten". This will to bring together the many
evidences that support my claims concerning the significance of this
number.
Sincerely, and with kind regards,
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
PS I doubt whether the "defense (prosecution?)" can afford to rest!
V
John Burgeson wrote:
>
> Vernaon:
>
> In reply to your last post (finally; I've been suffering a Texas vacation):
>
> You wrote:
>
> "I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your email of 28 April.
>
> Let me first thank you for the personal good wishes. Of course, the
> general tenor of what you have written gives a firm 'thumbs down' to my
> claims. However, this is an attitude that I find somewhat confusing. May
> I therefore request some clarification? For example, at what point in
> the following development would we part company? Do you agree
>
> (1) that the coordinated numerical phenomena involving, in particular,
> Gn.1:1 and the Lord's Name, actually exist?"
>
> Let me concede that they do exist. I have not considered it useful to check
> out
> your math.
>
> "(2) that the circumstances surrounding their presence in Holy Writ are
> hardly within the power of chance, or of man, to engineer?"
>
> I suggest that they are, indeed, simply a coincidence.
>
> "(3) that occurring in a Book which claims for itself divine inspiration,
> an 'ET explanation' may be quickly discounted?"
>
> An "ET" explanation appears absurd.
>
> "(4) that it is therefore reasonable to believe that the phenomena are an
> integral part of the divine plan?"
>
> I see no reason to consider this claim valid.
>
> "(5) that they are intended to accomplish some serious purpose?"
>
> Likewise
>
> "(6) that that purpose must, reasonably, include: a clear demonstration
> of God's being and sovereignty; and a confirmation of the Book's
> inerrancy - in particular, that "...Christ Jesus came into the world to
> save sinners..." (1Tm.1:15)?"
>
> Likewise. I don't hold an "inerrancy" position by the way. All the defenses
> of this position I've ever read led me to more skepticism (almost cynicism)
> than I really wanted to have. I have no quarrel with those who hold this
> position; I
> simply don't think they've thought it through.
>
> "(7) that such can only be achieved by bringing details of the phenomena
> and their associations to a wide audience?"
>
> If I were not already a Christian, I would be less likely to consider His
> claims
> if your arguments (which I consider fatally flawed) were presented.
>
> "I would greatly appreciate your comments."
>
> You have them.
>
> "You refer to my basing my studies on "ad hoc explanations, hidden
> assumptions, etc." What exactly did you have in mind here? As far as I
> am aware, I am mainly in the business of describing things 'as they
> are'."
>
> I am greatly puzzled that you do not understand this. I'm sure you know the
> meaning of both "ad hoc" and "hidden assumptions." Let me
> explain both, however, in terms of what I see as at least one of the fatal
> flaws
> in your thesis.
>
> A "hidden assumption" which I think I've been able to draw out is that your
> scheme succeeds only if the base 10 numbering system is used.
>
> An "ad hoc assumption" is contained in your previous post, where you
> finally concede that, yes, the base 10 system (for you) is divinely
> inspired, and as
> proof of that point to how well it works in your thesis. But you can't
> develop an
> argument that way. Your thesis says:
>
> X is true (where X is all your math work)
> X depends on the base 10 being divinely inspired.
> The base 10 is divinely inspired because of X.
>
> In other words, they stand (or fall) together.
>
> What I was hoping for, when I queried you about the status of decimal
> numbers,
> is that you would give me independent arguments/evidences why 10 is
> divinely
> inspired. Let us assume that such evidence actually exists. 10 really is
> the
> divine plan, and nothing in your thesis X is needed to defend that
> statement.
> At that point, Vernon, you would have some consilience; two (or more)
> thesis supporting one another. You don't have that.
>
> BTW, I see no reason why 10 is divinely inspired. Does that make the
> baseball pitcher Afred Afronseco (spelling?) non-human because he has
> 24 digits, six on each extremity? I think not. The Babylonians had a base
> 12 numbering system;
> it is easy to see that such a system has certain advantages (if it had been
> chosen
> by us) over base 10.
>
> "Regarding 'biblical inerrancy': I believe the Scriptures to be divinely
> inspired; hence, that, ultimately - despite the frailties of their human
> 'authors' - they will fully and perfectly accomplish the purposes God
> intended."
>
> If that is what you mean by "inerrancy," we have no difference of opinion.
>
> "Concerning the numerical phenomena, I agree it is rather strange that
> nobody appears to have drawn these associations before. But that's the
> nature of all novel insights, wouldn't you agree?"
>
> Someone has to be first at almost everything. SO I'll have to agree here.
>
> "Then, in respect of you asking whether I thought the prominence of ten
> was 'divinely inspired', I thought I had conceded the point. I therefore
> await your further questions."
>
> No further questions. The defense (prosecution?) rests.
>
> John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 19:09:40 EDT