Vernon writes:
> Dave,
>
> Thank you for the additional information. We could be arguing at some
> length about whether or not iota appeared at the end of the second word
> John actually wrote c100AD. In the circumstances, therefore, the
> decisive argument in favour of it being there is the numerical one,
> thus:
>
> 1) Gen.1:1 and John 1:1 are textually parallel.
> 2) Gen.1:1 = 2701 = 37 x 73; John 1:1 (with iota) = 3627 = 39 x 93;
> John 1:1 (without iota) = 3617 (prime)
>
> Comment: the reflective factors in each case suggest a purposeful
> numerical link.
>
> 3) Gen.1:1 = 2701 = 73rd triangular number; Gen.1:1 + John 1:1 (with
> iota) = 2701 + 3627 = 6328 = 112th triangular number.
>
> Comment: John 1:1 may be realised as a numerical trapezium which
> functions perfectly as a a plinth for Gen.1:1. Without the iota, no
> trapezium, and no plinth.
>
> 4) John 1:1 (with iota) yields e when the formula (as used in Gene.1:1
> to yield pi) is applied; John 1:1 (without iota) spoils the pattern.
>
> I suggest that in the absence of direct knowledge vis-a-vis John's
> original, or his intention, these numerical facts must be decisive.
So here's the deal:
1. Certain texts are said to demonstrate their divinely inspired character
by the way in which they generate interesting numbers.
2. But there is uncertainty concerning the particular characters that
comprise the text. Choices must, therefore be made.
3. Choice "A" generates interesting numbers. Choice "B" does not.
4. Therefore it is self-evident that choice "A" is the correct one.
5. Thus it has been decisively demonstrated that the Bible is divinely
inspired.
With this kind of methodological flexibility, "success" seems assured.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 11 2001 - 19:51:30 EDT